PDA

View Full Version : History and Decline of Honour



Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 07:25 PM
The history of honour, identity in informal legal practice

(The Mediterranean, 12th - 20th cent.)

Koper, October 1999

In almost every European language the term honour contains a basic significatory duality. An individual's honour is one hand linked to his virtuous behaviour, to his ability to accept values and behaviours that can be incorporated in un unwritten code of mental and general culture of a certain social circle. On the other hand, the concept of an individual's honour is closely linked with the group to which he belongs, with social hierarchy which denotes his role and function - honour, therefore, which relates to ethical as well as moral values, and to the standards which define the group to which the individual belongs.

Such distinction (or such indistinctness) makes us ponder about the historical development of honour, particularly about relationship between honour and nature and the characteristics of the institutional, political and religious systems, the duty of which was to legalise, in different ways and with different intensity, the legitimacy of the differences in people's status and property, as well as to settle disputes in connection with the definition of honourable behaviour itself.

It is clear, therefore, that the approach to the subject of honour must by many-sided, for honour is not supposed to be merely a social language, which regulates behaviour and stipulates the roles and hierarchies, but also a hardly tangible sphere of disputes in which institutional and family relations have been repeatedly formed and in which the extents of the sacred and secular have tried to interpret the existing reality in a number of different ways. With the historical-legal turning point, most characteristic of which were codes and the beginning of the so-called century of the middle-class, this complexity disappears, although only seemingly, since that fairly widespread and obstinate pluralism, which followed the seeming uniformity of the Code, still stipulated, for quite some time, the rural society, which was often imbued with values that are normally understood under the notion of honour. Interaction between state and the Church, however, has been for some time still an expression of certainly not negligible role (especially in the sensitive sphere of weddings) which the language of honour played also in the economically and politically most important spheres of society in the 19th century and later.

At the symposium dedicated to the question of honour, different subjects and questions are to be broached more or less directly. Preference will be given, as much as possible, to the interdisciplinary approach and historical aspects, which will enable a revaluation of the traditionally autoreferential spheres of study. By considering heuristic complexity of the language of honour, the symposium should focus on more or less basic questions, while the aim of separate academic days should be to deal with as many subjects as possible as well as with their direct linking.


The central subject of honour is to be first of all approached by the definition (historical, anthropological, judicial) of the notion of honour itself; it is to be understood mainly in its ethical connotation or in the connotation of values which denote the identity of a certain community (in the widest sense of the term) and individuals in it. These values could be termed universal, for they are accepted by community as a whole, in spite of the changes in status and class. They usually concern the specificity of male and female sexes and the complexity if their interactions. What then stipulates male and female honour, which ethical parameters are characteristic of behaviour of both sexes, which are the elements that reinstate certain relationship between them, and which are the elements that create the context in which they are theoretically joined into unicum equipped with ethically positive and virtuous symbols and contents?
Honour is claimed by all social classes. Authority or power is in the controversial sphere of honour formed as a right. Montesquieu did not assert merely by chance that the societies ruled by a monarch were similar to the societies guided by the secret mechanisms of honour. The atmosphere of the implicit sacrality, which was virtually imbued with royal power, provided the ruler with a privilege of undisputed honour. It was no different as far as noblemen were concerned; they demanded such comprehension of honour, which derived directly from their status and privileges. The characteristics that stipulated above all the notion of male honour (such as courage, pretension to privilege, nobleness by blood and name) were inseparable from the comprehension of the status of the privileged nobility. These aspects are most obvious, where the controversial but permanent link between the monarch and the nobility was expressed with the equalisation between honour and honourable titles given by the ruler, which became particularly evident from the 17th century onwards, when a true competition began for honourable titles (often without any connection with direct implementation of the political power).
Subjects and questions to be breached during the first two sessions are very difficult to distinguish, at least in their major guidelines, from clearly contrasting relations between state and the Church, and from the numerous disputes that flared up during the Middle and Modern Ages between the Church authority and the temporal power.
The language of honour represented the most important expression of society, most characteristic of which have for quite some time been legal pluralism and a distinct tendency towards informal settling of disputes. Development of administrative and legal systems of new state formations contributed, however, more to a weakening than to the total suppression of these characteristics.
With the period of codification's, the legal pluralism (prevalent in societies where preserved by tradition and identity) assumed the form of subcultures, which in spite of their no doubt inferior position to some extent succeeded in having an effect on the writing of codes.

And thus the language of honour began its slow and unstoppable decline, during which it gradually limited itself to the increasingly peripheral spheres. In the end it was completely ousted by mass media and urbanisation. Its expressions of survival, however, are in fact merely a faint reflection of culture, which for centuries played the role of a true informal legal system.

http://www.zrs-kp.si/konferenca/onore_en.htm

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 07:55 PM
Honor, usually spelt honour outside the United States of America (http://www.wordlookup.net/un/united-states-of-america.html), comprises an indivual's reputation (http://www.wordlookup.net/re/reputation.html), self-perception or moral identity (http://www.wordlookup.net/id/identity.html). Previously honor figured largely as a guiding principle of society, functioning as part of a code of honor[?] (http://www.google.com/search?start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=code-of-honor) for a gentleman (http://www.wordlookup.net/ge/gentleman.html) and often coming to expression in the practice of duelling (http://www.wordlookup.net/du/duel.html). One's honor, that of one's wife, of one's (blood-)family or of one's beloved formed an all-important issues, but the concept appears to have declined in importance in the modern secular West (http://www.wordlookup.net/we/west.html). Popular stereotypes (http://www.wordlookup.net/st/stereotype.html) would have it surviving more definitively in alleged "hot-blooded" Mediterranean cultures (Italian, Arab, Hispanic ...) or in more "gentlemanly" societies (like the "Old South" of Dixie (http://www.wordlookup.net/di/dixie.html)). It lingers in the military (officers may conduct a court of honor[?] (http://www.google.com/search?start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=court-of-honor)) and in organisations with military echoes, such as Scouting (http://www.wordlookup.net/sc/scouting.html).



"Honor" in the case of females historically related frequently to sexuality (http://www.wordlookup.net/se/sexuality.html): preservation of "honor" equated primarily to maintenance of virginity (http://www.wordlookup.net/vi/virginity.html), or at least to preservation of exclusive monogamy (http://www.wordlookup.net/mo/monogamy.html). One could speculate that feminism (http://www.wordlookup.net/fe/feminism.html) may have changed some linguistic usage in this respect. Cultures (http://www.wordlookup.net/cu/culture.html) of honor can be contrasted with cultures of law (http://www.wordlookup.net/la/law.html). From the viewpoint of anthropology (http://www.wordlookup.net/an/anthropology.html), cultures of honor are associated with nomadic (http://www.wordlookup.net/no/nomad.html) peoples and herdsmen who carried their most valuable property (http://www.wordlookup.net/pr/property.html) with them and were likely to have it stolen, without any greater government (http://www.wordlookup.net/go/government.html) to have recourse to. In this situation, it is better to be feared than liked; and cultivating a reputation for swift and disproportionate revenge (http://www.wordlookup.net/re/revenge.html) increases the safety of your person and property. The mindset needed for a culture of honor has been remarked upon by thinkers ranging from Montesquieu (http://www.wordlookup.net/mo/montesquieu.html) to Steven Pinker (http://www.wordlookup.net/st/steven-pinker.html).

Cultures of honor are therefore associated with Bedouins (http://www.wordlookup.net/be/bedouin.html), with Scottish (http://www.wordlookup.net/sc/scotland.html) and English (http://www.wordlookup.net/en/england.html) herdsmen of the Border country (http://www.wordlookup.net/bo/border-country.html), and many similar peoples, who have little allegiance to a national (http://www.wordlookup.net/na/nation.html)government (http://www.wordlookup.net/go/government.html); with cowboys (http://www.wordlookup.net/co/cowboy.html), frontiersmen (http://www.wordlookup.net/fr/frontier.html), and ranchers (http://www.wordlookup.net/ra/ranch.html) of the American West (http://www.wordlookup.net/th/the-west-(u.s.).html), where law enforcement was often out of reach, as famously celebrated in Western movies (http://www.wordlookup.net/we/western-movie.html); and with aristocrats (http://www.wordlookup.net/ar/aristocrat.html), who enjoy hereditary (http://www.wordlookup.net/he/hereditary.html)privileges[?] (http://www.google.com/search?start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=privilege) that put them beyond the reach of general laws. Cultures of honor also flourish in criminal (http://www.wordlookup.net/cr/criminal.html) underworlds and gangs (http://www.wordlookup.net/ga/gang.html), whose members carry large amounts of cash (http://www.wordlookup.net/ca/cash.html) and contraband (http://www.wordlookup.net/co/contraband.html) and cannot complain to the law if it is stolen. The encouragement of violent cultures of honor is one of the drawbacks of legislation (http://www.wordlookup.net/le/legislation.html) that creates victimless crimes (http://www.wordlookup.net/vi/victimless-crime.html). Once a culture of honor exists, it is difficult for its members to make the transition to a culture of law; this requires that people become willing to back down and refuse to immediately retaliate, and from the viewpoint of the culture of honor this is a weak and unwise act.

Excerpt from http://www.wordlookup.net/ho/honour.html

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Accordingly, National Socialists will strive to be honourable and act honourably in all that they do. Of course, this is an ideal and would be difficult to achieve even in better social conditions than exist in the decadent societies of the System today. What is important above all though is that this ideal exists and is aspired to: only in this way can the excellence of the National Socialist spirit be forged.What this means on a practical level is that each National Socialist will set themself standards - of behaviour, dress, conduct and so on - and then strive to attain and maintain those standards.This means that each National Socialist will also not compromise on those standards: we will not accomodate ourselves to the many and varied forms of decadence and degeneracy that exist today. Most importantly, our honour means that we will not undertake - to further the cause or otherwise - any acts or actions which are dishonourable.

True National Socialists will already possess an instinctive sense of honour and will instinctively know what is right, even if they cannot express it in words. In the same way, someone who does not already possess this instinct for what is honourable and noble cannot be or hope to become a National Socialist.

Excerpt from http://www.skrewdriver.net/honourcode.html

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 08:21 PM
The Japanese code of honour, the Bushido, is of interest here, since it differs not much from the old Western code of chivalry, and since it is easy to read up on it.

Bushido (Japanese (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Japanese+language&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) "way of the warrior", bushidō), was the warrior code (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Warrior&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) of the samurai (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Samurai&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). Bushido was a strict code that demanded loyalty, devotion, and honor (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honour&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) to the death. Under Bushido, if a samurai failed to uphold his honor he could regain it by performing seppuku (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Seppuku&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) (ritual suicide).

Bushido is an internally-consistent ethical code (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Ethical+code&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). In its purest form, it demands of its practitioners that they look effectively backward at the present from the moment of their own death, as if they were already, in effect, dead. This is particularly true of the earlier forms of Bushido or budo. Of later forms, traditionalists would scoff, "they reason with staying alive kept clearly in mind."

There are seven virtues (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Virtue&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) associated with Bushido:


義 - Gi - Rectitude (http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Rectitude) (Right Decisions)
勇 - Yu - Courage (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Courage&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
仁 - Jin - Benevolence (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Benevolence&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
礼 - Rei - Respect (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Dignity&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
誠 - Makoto - Honesty (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honesty&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
名誉 - Meiyo - Honor (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honour&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
忠義 - Chugi - Loyalty (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Loyalty&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7ulb882sa3q3n?

Hagakure onlineversion: http://www.blackmask.com/olbooks/hagakuredex.htm
(selections from The Way of the Samurai, by 18th Century former Samurai Hagakure)

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 08:36 PM
chivalry (shĭv'əlrē) , system of ethical ideals that arose from feudalism (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=feudalis&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and had its highest development in the 12th and 13th cent. Chivalric ethics originated chiefly in France and Spain and spread rapidly to the rest of the Continent and to England. They represented a fusion of Christian and military concepts of morality and still form the basis of gentlemanly conduct. Noble youths became pages in the castles of other nobles at the age of 7; at 14 they trained as squires in the service of knights, learning horsemanship and military techniques, and were themselves knighted, usually at 21.

The chief chivalric virtues were piety, honor, valor, courtesy, chastity, and loyalty. The knight's loyalty was due to the spiritual master, God; to the temporal master, the suzerain; and to the mistress of the heart, his sworn love. Love, in the chivalrous sense, was largely platonic; as a rule, only a virgin or another man's wife could be the chosen object of chivalrous love. With the cult of the Virgin Mary, the relegation of noblewomen to a pedestal reached its highest expression.

The ideal of militant knighthood was greatly enhanced by the Crusades (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Crusades&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1). The monastic orders of knighthood, the Knights Templars (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=KnightsT2&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and the Knights Hospitalers (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=KnightsH&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1), produced soldiers sworn to uphold the Christian ideal. Besides the battlefield, the tournament (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=tourname&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) was the chief arena in which the virtues of chivalry could be proved. The code of chivalrous conduct was worked out with great subtlety in the courts of love that flourished in France and in Flanders. There the most arduous questions of love and honor were argued before the noble ladies who presided (see courtly love (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=courtlyl&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1)). The French military hero Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Bayard-P&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1), was said to be the last embodiment of the ideals of chivalry.

In practice, chivalric conduct was never free from corruption, increasingly evident in the later Middle Ages. Courtly love often deteriorated into promiscuity and adultery and pious militance into barbarous warfare. Moreover, the chivalric duties were not owed to those outside the bounds of feudal obligation. The outward trappings of chivalry and knighthood declined in the 15th cent., by which time wars were fought for victory and individual valor was irrelevant. Artificial orders of chivalry, such as the Order of the Golden Fleece (1423), were created by rulers to promote loyalty; tournaments became ritualized, costly, and comparatively bloodless; the traditions of knighthood became obsolete.

Medieval secular literature was primarily concerned with knighthood and chivalry. Two masterpieces of this literature are the Chanson de Roland (c.1098; see Roland (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Roland&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1)) and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (see Pearl, The (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Pearl&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1)). Arthurian legend (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Arthuria&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and the chansons de geste (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=chansons&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) furnished bases for many later romances and epics. The work of Chrétien de Troyes (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Chretien&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1) and the Roman de la Rose (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Romandel&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) also had tremendous influence on European literature. The endless chivalrous and pastoral romances, still widely read in the 16th cent., were satirized by Cervantes in Don Quixote. In the 19th cent., however, the romantic movement brought about a revival of chivalrous ideals and literature.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Chivalry&gwp=8&curtab

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 09:06 PM
A common distinction in the social sciences is that between guilt and shame cultures. I find this of interest when dealing with the Germanic and European concept of honour, since it is in no small way based on guilt more than shame. Probably to the extent where it is based in biological traits, and not only culture. At the same time, I suspect that with the onslaught of modern massmedia, politically correct witchhunts and commercialism, we are moving in the direction of a shame culture instead. This is probably a bad thing, since guilt morality is based on an inner code of morals, while shame morality is dependent on what other people will think (and since honour and race has no importance at all in current society, people driven by shame will not care for them at all). A good article on the area is the below:






http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

Oskorei
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 09:10 PM
Some topics for discussion could be the following:

- What is your personal code of honour (if any)?

- Why is honour as a concept dying in modern society?

- Is this a good or bad thing?

- What is honour? The texts in the thread only deal with the expressions of honour, but what is it?

- Or any other topic deemed important or interesting.

Huzar
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 09:51 PM
chivalry (shĭv'əlrē) , system of ethical ideals that arose from feudalism (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=feudalis&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and had its highest development in the 12th and 13th cent. Chivalric ethics originated chiefly in France and Spain and spread rapidly to the rest of the Continent and to England. They represented a fusion of Christian and military concepts of morality and still form the basis of gentlemanly conduct. Noble youths became pages in the castles of other nobles at the age of 7; at 14 they trained as squires in the service of knights, learning horsemanship and military techniques, and were themselves knighted, usually at 21.

The chief chivalric virtues were piety, honor, valor, courtesy, chastity, and loyalty. The knight's loyalty was due to the spiritual master, God; to the temporal master, the suzerain; and to the mistress of the heart, his sworn love. Love, in the chivalrous sense, was largely platonic; as a rule, only a virgin or another man's wife could be the chosen object of chivalrous love. With the cult of the Virgin Mary, the relegation of noblewomen to a pedestal reached its highest expression.

The ideal of militant knighthood was greatly enhanced by the Crusades (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Crusades&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1). The monastic orders of knighthood, the Knights Templars (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=KnightsT2&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and the Knights Hospitalers (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=KnightsH&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1), produced soldiers sworn to uphold the Christian ideal. Besides the battlefield, the tournament (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=tourname&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) was the chief arena in which the virtues of chivalry could be proved. The code of chivalrous conduct was worked out with great subtlety in the courts of love that flourished in France and in Flanders. There the most arduous questions of love and honor were argued before the noble ladies who presided (see courtly love (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=courtlyl&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1)). The French military hero Pierre Terrail, seigneur de Bayard (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Bayard-P&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1), was said to be the last embodiment of the ideals of chivalry.



Medieval secular literature was primarily concerned with knighthood and chivalry. Two masterpieces of this literature are the Chanson de Roland (c.1098; see Roland (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Roland&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1)) and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (see Pearl, The (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Pearl&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1)). Arthurian legend (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Arthuria&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) and the chansons de geste (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=chansons&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) furnished bases for many later romances and epics. The work of Chrétien de Troyes (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2039&dekey=Chretien&gwp=8&curtab=2039_1) and the Roman de la Rose (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=Romandel&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1) also had tremendous influence on European literature. The endless chivalrous and pastoral romances, still widely read in the 16th cent., were satirized by Cervantes in Don Quixote. In the 19th cent., however, the romantic movement brought about a revival of chivalrous ideals and literature.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Chivalry&gwp=8&curtab
Very interesting. I studied medieval history. it's a facinating age of Europe, more than many think ; Knights are one of the best expressions of hindo european worrior-spirit, pervaded by an higher stat of spiritual evolution. Surely a symbol of white history in the complex. The three principal orders (Teutonics, Templars,Hospitalers) constituted entire armies, for their countries, their "holy causes" and their own objectives of power. During my literature studies i've read some parts of masterpieces you cite;these, are the examples of the two MAIN literal tendencies of medieval age :the "Carolingian current", based on strenght, pure honor/duty, indifference in front of death, fear, and pain (typical germanic derivation about values and context) ;the "Chanson de Roland" is manifestation of this. The second, is the "Briton current", charachterized by a strong romantic influence; here, Knight brave spirit, is mixed with a human passion typical of Celtic and Latin culture, whom creates stories related to intense love, intense hate and other violent passions unusual to north european tradition. The invincible hero of nordic sagas, becomes an ambiguous lover who tries to preserve his honor code insted his overvhelming sentiments. However, the contrapposition between spirituality, duty, faith ,honor(trascendental values) and human, materialistic reality, is a distinctive traits of all medieval psychology.

[QUOTE=Oskorei].

Bushido (Japanese (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Japanese+language&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) "way of the warrior", bushidō), was the warrior code (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Warrior&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) of the samurai (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Samurai&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). Bushido was a strict code that demanded loyalty, devotion, and honor (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honour&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) to the death. Under Bushido, if a samurai failed to uphold his honor he could regain it by performing seppuku (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Seppuku&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) (ritual suicide).

Bushido is an internally-consistent ethical code (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Ethical+code&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1). In its purest form, it demands of its practitioners that they look effectively backward at the present from the moment of their own death, as if they were already, in effect, dead. This is particularly true of the earlier forms of Bushido or budo. Of later forms, traditionalists would scoff, "they reason with staying alive kept clearly in mind."

There are seven virtues (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Virtue&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) associated with Bushido:

義 - Gi - Rectitude (http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Rectitude) (Right Decisions)
勇 - Yu - Courage (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Courage&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
仁 - Jin - Benevolence (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Benevolence&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
礼 - Rei - Respect (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Dignity&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
誠 - Makoto - Honesty (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honesty&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
名誉 - Meiyo - Honor (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Honour&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
忠義 - Chugi - Loyalty (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Loyalty&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)
QUOTE]

I loved Samurai Spirit, too. Their code reseambles western Crusaders surely.
I read years ago a modern critic of Hagakure by famous writer Yukio Mishima. He substantially elaborated all this series of ancient values, adfirming their actuality today in some ways. Of course, to be duty to this way of life it's necessary an higher mental condition ;surely very few people of actual society has the intrinsic will to adapt themselves to it.

For last thing, if i can do an observation, japanese honor code differs from western honor code in a subtle phylosophical/religious sense : while knights honor concept is strongly cohesed with moral pragmatic precepts of christianity, (for example about sex, drinking et many other things) therefore is charachterized by a clear moral background, Samurai honor concept is free from any dogmatic background: in ancient japanese religion (SHINTO) is not pragmatically organized like western judeo/chistian religions, so has a more ethical background, than moral. I mean, there is a major indifference about material world(ZEN derivation), so great, that there is a latent tendence to indifference about life (suicide is admitted) and personal acts (sex is not a crime). Japanese honor code, projects itself on a higher sphere of spiritual condition and knowledge (i suppose).

Lidvick
Friday, February 18th, 2005, 06:19 PM
My sentiments of honor coincides with my religous beliefs.

In my way of living and thinking is the following,

: honor the Gods and show absolute loyalty and compassion towards them.

: If you have a wife or lover , love her well and be loyal to her and always be by her side.

: Go in life strong and do not fear death for death shall knock on your door someday regardless and sometimes we do not choose when.

: In battle or in fighting show no fear towards your enemy , and be strong to whatever may come to you no matter how terrifying it be.

: love your kin and always be by their side. Same for your race as we all know here, love your race and do not turn your back on it.

: I like the saying die well and die free, even though it is from a movie I still like the saying, or the saying strength and honor. I believe how we live now is how we will be judged later so we should all live well now in the time we live.

I was watching the movie Gladiator with Russel Crowe yesterday one of my fav movies I like the part of the movie he says, " What we do now echoes in eternity."

I believe that this is the way and thought of honor for myself I would love to hear other versions of it from people.:) :thumbup

Huzar
Friday, February 18th, 2005, 10:53 PM
: I like the saying die well and die free, even though it is from a movie I still like the saying, or the saying strength and honor. I believe how we live now is how we will be judged later so we should all live well now in the time we live.

I was watching the movie Gladiator with Russel Crowe yesterday one of my fav movies I like the part of the movie he says, " What we do now echoes in eternity."

I believe that this is the way and thought of honor for myself I would love to hear other versions of it from people.:) :thumbup

Some weeks ago i saw EXCALIBUR (john Boorman). The same emotion. Perhaps deeper. "Our moment will be again in another time". The story of a sword "forged by a god, foretold by a wizard, found by a king".
I must cite Conan (john Milius, 1981) a dark hymn to the strenght

"CROM......god of the stone and the steel.....when this world will be finished, nobody, neither YOU, will remember what we were in our life, because we are only dust. NO one, will know if we were good or bad human beings in our life; for what we fought, lived and for what we died. Nothing of us will survive. But one thing will survive : the spirit of our courage. And the fact that one day, few men fought against many. This is important........":thumbup

Oskorei
Friday, February 18th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

A coward believes he will ever live
if he keep him safe from strife:
but old age leaves him not long in peace
though spears may spare his life.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473

Lidvick
Saturday, February 19th, 2005, 03:27 AM
Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

A coward believes he will ever live
if he keep him safe from strife:
but old age leaves him not long in peace
though spears may spare his life.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473
I like Havamal my fav quotes would be :

The unwise man thinks all to know while he sits in a sheltered nook, but he knows not one thing, what he shall answer if men shall put him to proof.


There is one I can not remember but is somthing like this,

Miserable is he who knows to much in wisdom for misery is upon him , or somthing like that.

I can not seem to find this in the online versions I must of read it from a book in different translation.


Lidvick:) :thumbup

Horagalles
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 04:54 PM
Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

A coward believes he will ever live
if he keep him safe from strife:
but old age leaves him not long in peace
though spears may spare his life.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473 Honour, EER, Ehre (It also exists in Arbeidt ar-)
We never used the term at home, but the concept was omnipresent. The things not good to do:thumbdown <-> Honour for performance etc:thumbup . Strangely in germanic languages er, ehr, ar, usually refer to honour and related terms. In English those words are mostly replaced (talking about honour)

Appalachian
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Col. John Mosby and the Southern Code of Honor
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/uniform.jpg
The study of Col. John Singleton Mosby, C.S.A. (1833-1916), the leader of the Civil War's most successful guerrilla command, presents important cultural findings of a man who truly became a legend in his own time. Through his own efforts to publicize himself as well as an eager Confederate press, the wartime image of Mosby emerged as a gallant knight, a defender of women and children, an inheritor of an ancient line of noble warriors. Union supporters meanwhile branded Mosby no more than a horse thief. At the close of the Civil War, Mosby simply disbanded his men rather than surrender their unit to the Union army. After the war, however, a new image of Mosby emerged -- one who supported reconciliation with the North.
In the 19th century one's public image remained of upmost importance. Through a series of self-conscious acts, men and women created their character in the public eye to reinforce beliefs held in the existing society. Acting according to a particular code of honor was stressed, especially in the South. Fighting in the Civil War created an opportunity to manifest one's personal honor and set it on display.

This project will argue that Mosby self-consciously created a persona that upheld the various characteristics that marked Southern honor -- a focus on outward appearance, a tendency toward revenge and violence, and an adherence to one's word -- an image the rest of the South was only too happy to accept and promote. The North, however, maintained different notions of honorable behavior, based not only on the circumstances of war but also on larger cultural distinctions. Often overlooked in the popular myth, Mosby's detractors used honor as a weapon against him, calling his surprise attacks cowardly and dishonest.

Mosby's importance as a cultural object only can be truly understood in the context of the Southern code of honor's decline throughout the 19th century. As American society continued to become more concerned with class consciousness, secularism and egalitarianism, the code of honor slowly began to unravel. But the myth did not. The importance of Mosby as a representative of this lost "honorable" code of living has survived his historical and regional context. Despite efforts by critics to de-mystify Mosby, his legend survives to this day as a prototypical American hero -- fiercely independent, innovative in his practice yet stubborn in his ideals.

Introduction (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/intro.html)
A Brief Biography (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/bio.html)
Honorable Violence (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/violence.html)
Physical Appearance and the Code of Honor (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/body.html)
Mosby and Oath-taking (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/oath.html)
The Mark of Gentility (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/literary.html)
The Tradition of Chivalry (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/chivalry.html)
Mosby and the North (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/north.html)
Mosby After the War (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/anderson/after.html)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006, 07:20 PM
http://encounterbooks.com/books/hohi/hohi.html

Honor: A History

by James Bowman

The importance of honor is present in the earliest records of civilization. Today, while it may still be an essential concept in Islamic cultures, in the West, honor has been disparaged and dismissed as obsolete. In this lively and authoritative book, James Bowman traces the curious and fascinating history of this ideal, from the Middle Ages through the Enlightenment and to the killing fields of World War I and the despair of Vietnam. Bowman reminds us that the fate of honor and the fate of morality and even manners are deeply interrelated. His book is an indispensable document in a time of growing concern about the erosion of values.

“What an engaging book James Bowman has written, and what a daunting command he has of his material. Ranging across psychology, popular culture, military history, the arts, and politics, Honor is a tapestry of the 20th century that uses a neglected thread-the evolution of the complicated bundle of values that goes into the concept of honor-to explain how our culture got where it is today. Honor gives that rarest of gifts: a new, powerful way of thinking about a familiar history”

— Charles Murray, author of Losing Ground

“James Bowman has written a profound and important book, at once fascinating and alarming, on the changing fortunes of the idea of ‘honor’ in America and the West. Faced with the energy and the implacable hatred of the barbaric version of honor in radical Islam, our long-term survival may well depend on the reinvention of a form of honor suitable to free and democratic societies.”

— Robert Bork, author of The Tempting of America

“What an engaging book James Bowman has written, and what a daunting command he has of his material. Ranging across psychology, popular culture, military history, the arts, and politics, Honor: A History is a tapestry of the twentieth century that uses a neglected thread—the evolution of the complicated bundle of values that goes into the concept of honor—to explain how our culture got where it is today. Honor gives that rarest of gifts: a new, powerful way of thinking about a familiar history.”

— Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences

“You will gain a new insight on the first page of this book, and on the last, and there are fireworks all the way through, again and again. A real education, on a subtle topic—on a topic of unheard-of, silent, horizon-shifting importance, like the shifting of the earth deep below the surface.”

— Michael Novak, author of On Two Wings

James Bowman has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New Criterion and other publications. He was the American editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London and is currently a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute.

Here's my review of the book:


James Bowman's Sense of Honor

The concept of honor has been at the basis of any true civilization throughout history. Over several centuries this concept governed matters of moral and social responsibilities. Yet over the past century or so, Western society has been rejecting this very concept, with the decline of cultural vitality and strength as the major result. This decline has only left the West vulnerable to attacks from Islamic fanatics (who still adhere to a primitive form of honor). If the West wishes to survive these attacks and eventually defeat its enemies, the West will have to rediscover its forgotten ideals of honor and valor. That’s the basic argument made by James Bowman in his new book Honor: A History (http://encounterbooks.com/books/hohi/hohi.html). Within its pages, Bowman seeks to give an authoritative account of the development of Western concepts of honor and valor down through the ages: from its origins in the Greco-Roman world, to the Medieval concept of chivalry, to the Victorian gentleman, to its eventual decline during World War I to the rise of the “post-honor society” in wake of the Vietnam War and the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. Bowman then goes on to show how honor still has a place within the modern world, and it’d wise for Western society to recover at least some form of it.

Although Bowman certainly deserves credit for attempting to bring light on a matter like this to the public eye, and to especially critique modern decadence with a call for a return to forgotten principles; yet as far as this work being an actual history of the development of Western concepts of honor, it’s not too impressive.

For example, only a few pages are actually devoted to describing the concept of honor during the Middle Ages, which is perhaps the historical epoch Westerners most associate with honor. Exactly how on earth is that possible? We’re talking about the Age of Chivalry, and only five or so pages are dedicated to it!

In fact when concerning the whole history of honor prior to the 20th century, one gets the impression that Bowman only glances over it very briefly; almost as if he wants to get to the modern era as quickly as possible. Only when Bowman starts getting more and more into the 20th century and describing the eventual decline of honor and the rise of the “post-honor society” does he seem to devote any kind of real attention to the matter. Why is this? Probably due to two important factors the author mentions within the pages of his book.

Well within the introduction to the book, Bowman recalls his youthful days as an anti-war activist during the Vietnam era, lamenting the fact that he never served in the military. Furthermore, he laments the rampant decadence that was become all to prevalent within modern society and America’s supposed “weak” response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th (more on this later). So Bowman makes it clear that this book is largely intended to be a commentary on modern society rather than a full historical account of the concept of honor.

This is further proved by the fact that Bowman admits to largely disregarding most scholarship on the matter, claiming that it is too full of liberal bias. Although I would certainly agree with Bowman’s basic assessment, however I think he simply uses this as an excuse in not having to do a more thorough scholarly work and to attack those who disagree with his positions. This is particularly true when Bowman pretty much knee-jerks Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679450351/ref=olp_product_details/102-1940028-5409723?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155), for supposedly arguing that chivalry and terrorism are basically the same thing.

Yet when it comes to providing an actual detailed historical account of Western notions of heroic masculinity and its development, Braudy’s book far outclasses Bowman’s work. Yet when it comes to describing the continual relevance of such notions in current society and into the future, Bowman shows more promise. Braudy is of the common opinion that modern society has basically outgrown any real need for a heroic sense of masculinity based on honor and such. Masculinity altogether needs to be redefined. Bowman argues the opposite, claiming that such ideals still have great relevance, but yes may need to be modified a bit in order to pertain to current concerns and needs. So in a sense, both works complement each other.

Yet failing to give to a general historical account of Western concepts of honor is not the only flaw of Bowman’s book. His description of the relationship between the concept of honor and the Christian faith deserves a proper answer. Bowman at first praises Christianity for its immeasurable role in the development of Western culture. He even notes that Christianity was an important factor in making Western notions of honor far more unique from that found in other cultures. For example, the elevated status that women enjoy within Western honor is not found in other cultures, particularly the Islamic world.

Yet despite all this praise, Bowman insists that at the heart of Christianity is a bias against the concept of honor. Christian teachings go fully against everything that honor stands for; and that the advent of chivalry and eventually the Victorian concept of the Christian gentlemen were nothing than an uneasy compromise between the two ideals that was doomed to eventual failure (in World War I).

I can only say that Bowman doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The basis of the concept of honor is largely an adherence to high principles and maintaining the good will of ones peers. There’s nothing un-Christian about that. However, many times honor can too easily degrade into egotism and protecting ones pride and vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, and was a major element to the pagan sense of honor. The Christian sense of honor goes on the other hand condemns this, calling for a self-sacrificial adherence to ones principles. If one must endure severe insults to ones reputation in the name of a greater cause, then so be it. The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian and the pagan concepts of honor.

Yet it is the Christian sense of honor that Bowman seems to reject. Bowman declares that a man of honor must answer any challenge made to him, while Christian demands that a man turn the other cheek. Bowman wrongly claims that this means Christianity is pacifist in nature, it does not. CS Lewis gave wonderful insight into the question:

"Does anyone suppose that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?"
Christ’s command to ‘turn the other cheek’ does not mean that the legitimate use of violence for purposes of self-defense is not acceptable. Rather Christ is telling his followers not to take the law into their own hands. Yet according to Bowman, a man of honor is supposed to take the law into his own hands, in the practice of the duel.

There certainly is no doubt that the relationship between Christian teachings and the ideals of honor was complex, however Bowman fails to provide a proper account of it. A far better account of such is provided by Allen J. Frantzen’s Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226260852/702-2438414-4916848). Unlike Bowman, Frantzen actually gives accounts about how Christianity since its beginnings had a deep admiration for martial valor; which is clearly seen in Ephesians 6:10-18, where St. Paul calls on Christians to put on “the armor of God”, “the helmet of salvation”, and wield “the sword of the spirit”. Frantzen also explains in great detail the important role that Christ’s passion and death had on the development of chivalry. Frantzen also gives more detailed accounts about the Medieval development of chivalry and its 19th century revival.

As mentioned before, the main value of Bowman’s work is largely detailing the decline of honor in modern society, and how a revival of such ideals can help drag us out of our rampant social decadence. Yet even here Bowman’s analysis is highly flawed, especially when dealing with the role of honor in America’s foreign policy. Long story short, Bowman advocates a Neo-Con policy of complete aggression towards the Islamic world, and that anybody who doesn’t agree with that is basically a liberal sissy who wishes to give in to terrorists. In other words, it’s a dressed up version of the famous "Dicks vs. Assholes vs. Pussies" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/quotes) rant made by the character Gary Johnson in the movie “Team America: World Police”. I’m sure Bowman could’ve done much better than that.

Sadly this also destroys the potential value this book may have had. Bowman’s call for the revival of honor in the end is reduced as just another way of knocking off the liberal Democrats and an excuse for waging wars of aggression against the Islamic world. If this is what Bowman considers honor to be largely about, then count me out!

That is not to say Bowman’s book is utterly worthless, it most certainly is not. However, one has to selectively absorb what Bowman is saying in order to get a true picture of the story.

Also in fairness, at his website (http://www.jamesbowman.net/) Bowman provides a collection of several articles and essays he’s written on the matter. In my opinion, these are of far better quality than many of the statements he makes in his book.

So in a final and ironic twist, Bowman is correct in stating the West is need of reviving its now forgotten notions of honor and valor in order to maintain any kind of strength and cultural vitality. Yet the exact form of honor that Bowman advocates to fulfill that mission may not actually be what the West truly needs right now

http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html
Personal Virtues
These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.

Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.

Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work.

Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.

Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.

Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.

Public Virtues
In addition to the private virtues which were aspired to by individuals, Roman culture also strived to uphold Virtues which were shared by all of society in common. Note that some of the virtues to which individuals were expected to aspire are also public virtues to be sought by society as a whole. These virtues were often expressed by minting them on coinage; in this way, their message would be shared by all the Classical world. In many cases, these Virtues were personified as deities.

Abundantia: "Abundance, Plenty" The ideal of there being enough food and prosperity for all segments of society.

Aequitas: "Equity" Fair dealing both within government and among the people.

Bonus Eventus: "Good fortune" Rememberance of important positive events.

Clementia: "Clemency" Mercy, shown to other nations.

Concordia: "Concord" Harmony among the Roman people, and also between Rome and other nations.

Felicitas: "Happiness, prosperity" A celebration of the best aspects of Roman society.

Fides: "Confidence" Good faith in all commercial and governmental dealings.

Fortuna: "Fortune" An acknowledgement of positive events.

Genius: "Spirit of Rome" Acknowledgement of the combined spirit of Rome, and its people.

Hilaritas: "Mirth, rejoicing" An expression of happy times.

Iustitia: "Justice" As expressed by sensible laws and governance.

Laetitia: "Joy, Gladness" The celebration of thanksgiving, often of the resolution of crisis.

Liberalitas: "Liberality" Generous giving.

Libertas: "Freedom" AVirtue which has been subsequently aspired to by all cultures.

Nobilitas: "Noblility" Noble action within the public sphere.

Ops: "Wealth" Acknowledgement of the prosperity of the Roman world.

Patientia: "Endurance, Patience" The ability to weather storms and crisis.

Pax: "Peace" A celebration of peace among society and between nations.

Pietas: "Piety, Dutifulness" People paying honor to the gods.

Providentia: "Providence, Fortethought" The ability of Roman society to survive trials and manifest a greater destiny.

Pudicita: "Modesty, Chastity." A public expression which belies the accusation of "moral corruptness" in ancient Rome.

Salus: "Safety" Concern for public health and wellfare.

Securitas: "Confidence, Security" Brought by peace and efficient governance.

Spes: "Hope" Especially during times of difficulty.

Uberitas: "Fertility" Particularly concerning agriculture.

Virtus: "Courage" Especially of leaders within society and government.


True virtues for traditional masculinity European style!
.

Moody
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 04:15 PM
What is the justification for the Classical Rule of Order?

That is, how did the Classical World justify its canon, its Order of Rank?

It did so on the basis of its overriding need to subjugate the Chaos which is at the root of all existence, and to then impose Order on it.

This is Fascismo.

Cosmos out of Chaos.

This in itself is reason enough - it is the whole reason ... to the rational man.
But to the fanatic, to the enthusiast, to the intuitive, to the hysteric, to the believer ... it is never enough.

The three great A's of Classicism;

Agriculture,
Aristocracy,
Architecture.

Yes, you CAN evaluate great politics, great art etc., by its very ability to impose Order, to present structures, frameworks, rules, laws, etc.,

Ha! Up now! honour!
Moral honour! European honour!
Blow again, continue, Bellow-box of virtue!
Ha!
[Nietzsche, TSZ, Among Daughters of the Desert]

Honour
c.1200, "glory, renown, fame earned," from Anglo-French honour, from Old French honor, Latin honorem (nominative honos) "honour, dignity, office, reputation," of unknown origin.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=honour&searchmode=none



The basis of the concept of honor is largely an adherence to high principles and maintaining the good will of ones peers. There’s nothing un-Christian about that. However, many times honor can too easily degrade into egotism and protecting ones pride and vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, and was a major element to the pagan sense of honor. The Christian sense of honor goes on the other hand condemns this, calling for a self-sacrificial adherence to ones principles. If one must endure severe insults to ones reputation in the name of a greater cause, then so be it.

Isn't the Christian rejection of Pride, [ pride being central to the pagan notion of honour], a crucial factor in the decline of White Pride?

Christianity 'moralised' honour, as you suggest, and rid it of everything that Christianity regarded as vain, egotistical and ... proud.

But how can a proud people assert itself without Pride?

Isn't a lack of pride the basic cause of decadence amongst White peoples?

It wasn't that way with the pagan Germans. Their concept of honour [ere] was very different to the post-Christian concept of honour. Unfortunately the same word is used to render quite different concepts [leading to statements such as 'honour has always been important amongst great civilisations' etc., - but what type of 'honour'?]

"Even if we say ... 'honor' ... we mean something essentially different by [this word] from that which our heathen ancestors meant. In any case, their concept has an entirely different nuance ...
Above all, 'ere' should not be rendered as 'Ehre' [honor], ... the true meaning of the word 'ere' ... [is] defined as 'splendour, glory, the higher standing, partly that which arises from power and wealth, partly that which arises from courage and bravery' ...
Scholars are fairly well agreed that 'ere' was an objective value, a good fortune without ethical overtones ... it denotes purely externally the esteem, the respected position etc.,
... 'Ere' was often the equivalent of 'dom', the most prevalent word for fame in the early Germanic days ... since 'ere', by definition, was also the approval or respect of other people, it would be incongruous to confuse it with 'inner honor'; and honour continued to be a worldly possession ...
[from 'Honor in German Literature'];
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/honor/002.php

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Isn't the Christian rejection of Pride, [ pride being central to the pagan notion of honour], a crucial factor in the decline of White Pride?

No not really. There's a big difference between geniune love and egotistical pride. Christianity promotes the former, you promote the latter.



But how can a proud people assert itself without Pride?

It obviously cannot. But again, there's a difference between a geniune love for your folk and a egotistical pride in it. A perfect example of the latter is what commonly passes off as "patriotism" in America today. GK Chesterton went to some length explaining the difference as well:

"The false patriot will boast of all the things that he can gain out of association with England: the true patriot will boast of all the things he will lose by association with her. To the false patriot England will be at best a sanity: to the true patriot she will be a sanctity. The false patriot will boast about the constant increase of England and sing songs about the accident of her prosperity. The true patriot will boast of her last battle and sing the song of her heroic fall."

Within the egotistical pride mindset, your heritage must be the greatest in the world. With mindset of geniune love, your heritage only has to be your own. Whether it is the greatest in the world or not, that is irrelevant. Your love for it is unconditional, just like towards your family(again regardless whether it is the greatest family in the world or not).

I think the decline of Europe has come about because over time, egotistical pride came to replace geniune love. And that eventually lead Europe's nations into disasterous occasions and that eventually caused revulsion among many.

It only proves the Bible correct when it states "Pride comes before a fall, and arrogance precedes failure." (Proverbs 16:18)



Isn't a lack of pride the basic cause of decadence amongst White peoples?

No, in fact the current decadence is the final consequence of excessive pride among European peoples.



It wasn't that way with the pagan Germans. Their concept of honour [ere] was very different to the post-Christian concept of honour.

Didnt know there was a "post-Christian" sense of honour, but if you mean Christian sense of honour then yes. As I said, Bowman actually goes to some length explaining this. Christianity was the big influence in making Western honour unqiue among all the cultures of the world.

Moody
Thursday, June 1st, 2006, 05:22 PM
No not really. There's a big difference between geniune love and egotistical pride. Christianity promotes the former, you promote the latter.

I didn't mention "genuine love"; I just responded to your claim that Christianity rejected Pride.
Is that what you actually meant, or are you saying that Christianity allows some kind of 'unegoistical' pride?


there's a difference between a geniune love for your folk and a egotistical pride in it.

Why can't you have both?
Why can't you both love your race and be proud of your race?

Love is nothing without pride!


GK Chesterton went to some length explaining the difference as well:
"The ... true patriot will boast of all the things he will lose by association with her ... The true patriot will boast of her last battle and sing the song of her heroic fall."

So you agree with boasting!
Isn't 'boasting' an example of the so-called "egoistical pride" you say that Christianity condemns?

Dictionary definition;
'Boast': To speak of with excessive pride.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boast

GK Chesterton, like all true 'men of the book', whether Jew, Christian or Moslem, could not allow that the love and pride of race and nation could exceed the love and pride of God.
As he wrote;
"The intellectual criticism of Fascism is really this:that it appeals to an appetite for authority, without very clearly giving the authority for the appetite".[GKC]

Clearly, to such a one there is only one authority, and that is [i]God.
God comes before race & nation [and also before ego].
And therefore, if it comes to the choice between them, God will always be chosen before race & nation.

Essentially, the 'man-of-the-book' places the love of the Otherwordly before the love of the flesh-and-blood of this world.


Within the egotistical pride mindset, your heritage must be the greatest in the world. With mindset of geniune love, your heritage only has to be your own. Whether it is the greatest in the world or not, that is irrelevant. Your love for it is unconditional, just like towards your family(again regardless whether it is the greatest family in the world or not).

You must also be proud of your living family/race/nation for what it is, and must exalt that over all else - even over your 'God'.
You must love your living family/race/nation for what it is - it must be dearer to you than even your God.

For without the living family of flesh and blood there is nothing else; and even a God will desert such a nullity.

Your God will just go on and find a another race to Father if He is to survive; or perhaps He will go extinct too.


I think the decline of Europe has come about because over time, egotistical pride came to replace geniune love. And that eventually lead Europe's nations into disasterous occasions and that eventually caused revulsion among many.

Wasn't your position that historically, Christian honour replaced Pagan pride in Europe?
The subsequent cult of Love without Pride [moral interpretation of Christianity] has eventually lead to a Universalism which is inimical to Racial Pride.
[Please be more specific about the "disasters" which caused "revulsion".]


Christianity was the big influence in making Western honour unqiue among all the cultures of the world.

The Christian version of honour was not identical with the pre-Christian and Pagan sense of honour, as the piece I excerpted made clear.

The "uniqueness" of this post-Pagan and therefore Christian version of honour resides in its rejection of Pride as you said earlier.

The West is indeed 'unique' in undermining its own racial pride.

The rest of the world stands aghast as the West allows all races, all creeds into its homelands!
The rest of the world is stunned when the West makes Racial Pride a crime amongst its own people!
The rest of the world rubs its hands at this sense of 'honour', and craftily praises the West for displaying such 'unegoistical' tolerance!

If a suicidal rejection of 'egoistical pride' is an example of 'Christian honour', then I think we are better off without it.

Or I think we might rather inject a dose of Pagan Pride into our veins before all the blood is drained out of us.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Clearly, to such a one there is only one authority, and that is God.
God comes before race & nation [and also before ego].

Yes, since God was the one who created the nations and races of the world(and even has the power if he so chooses to destroy them) it's common sense that devotion to God comes first.

Of course you wouldnt understand that Moody. Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, a staunch Croatian nationalist himself, made clear the Catholic position on nationalism:


"Modern racism blames the Church for not falling on her knees in front of its idols. But is ethnicity the highest human value? It is not, because it would otherwise have to be able to fulfill all human strivings and to make man blessed on earth. And that cannot happen; that should be obvious. And eventually, at death, all racial differences disappear. Therefore, man will not be justified in God's judgment by belonging to this or that race, but by honest life and good deeds. So if love toward a nation crosses the borders of sound reason, then it is no longer love, but passion, and passion is neither of use, nor lasting. . . . That is why the Church, in the matters of ethnicity, also puts forward this principle: what you do not want to have done to yourself, do not do to others! Love for a man's own nation must not make a man into a wild animal, which tears down and provokes revenge; it must make him more noble, so that he can gain the respect and love of other nations for his nation. Therefore love toward your own nation is not contradictory to love for the whole of mankind; they complement each other. All of the nations are children of God."

He also once wrote these words to Archbishop Pellegrinetti:

"I always felt horrible pain because of exaggerated nationalism, wherever in the world it rules. On its account man is no longer brother to another man, but becomes a wolf. Therefore, the next council of the Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism first among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest plague of the human race."

Today he is rightfully honoured by the Croatian nation for his continual defense of his nation's right to existance against the Communists, but also stressed that true national devotion should not be built on a rejection of God nor on the baseless hatred of other nations.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainta66.jpg





And therefore, if it comes to the choice between them, God will always be chosen before race & nation.

Essentially, the 'man-of-the-book' places the love of the Otherwordly before the love of the flesh-and-blood of this world.

You present a false dilemma here Moody. Christianity(or at least Catholicism) has never ever forced people to decide between devotion to God and devotion to ones nation. In fact Pope Pius X spoke these words to a gathering of French pilgrims on April 19, 1909:

"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion...Yes, it is worthy not only of love but of predilection that country (patrie) whose sacred name awakens in your mind the most cherished memories and makes quiver every fiber of your soul, that common country which has cradled you, to which you are bound by bonds of blood and by still nobler bonds of affection and tradition."

In fact it was from Christianity that Europe adopted its concepts of nationalism and nationhood.





You must also be proud of your living family/race/nation for what it is, and must exalt that over all else - even over your 'God'.
You must love your living family/race/nation for what it is - it must be dearer to you than even your God.

:thumbdown Yeah ok Moody....in other words you want nations to worship themselves, to become narcissists. Again, that's not love, but a perversion.

Moody
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Yes, since God was the one who created the nations and races of the world(and even has the power if he so chooses to destroy them) it's common sense that devotion to God comes first.
Of course you wouldnt understand that Moody.

It's not that I don't understand that; the concept that "the nations and races of the world" were created by God is easy to understand. It is rather that I don't believe it.
Not only do I disbelieve in such a 'creation', I also find it rather unacceptible that this one God created all of the nations and all of the races.
Therefore, to a non-believer there is no "logic" in being devoted to God over one's own race & nation. Indeed, that would seem rather perverse, particularly when you tell us that this God was the Father of all the other nations and races and that we are all his 'children'.


Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac:[i]" is ethnicity the highest human value?
It is not ...[...]... and eventually, at death, all racial differences disappear. Therefore, man will not be justified in God's judgment by belonging to this or that race ...
... in the matters of ethnicity, [the Church] puts forward this principle: what you do not want to have done to yourself, do not do to others!
... love toward your own nation is not contradictory to love for the whole of mankind; they complement each other. All of the nations are children of God."

This belief I find perverse in the extreme.
Other nations and other races are the 'children' of their own Gods!
The Gods of the black races of Africa have not fathered the Aryan peoples of Europe! [nor vice versa]!
This belief [which is without evidence] in one God fathering all the races & nations of the world is the pernicious Father of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism.


"... the next council of the Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism first among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest plague of the human race."

Of course, to the religious fanatic, Nationalism is considered a heresy [the use of the qualifying word "exaggerated" is a red-herring]. Belloc listed Nationalism [exaggerated or unexaggerated] in his book of Modern Heresies.
The reason is obvious; Nationalism [and racialism] challenge the belief in a Universal God who is supposed to be the Father of all mankind.
Racial Nationalism says that my nation and my race are special and unique. And says that they are not fathered by Yahweh or by Jehovah, or any other Middle-eastern deity.

In elder-times [pagan era] it was considered that the Nordic race and the Nordic tribes were descended from Odin, Tyr and Thorr etc., .
It was never believed in elder-times that foreign races shared the same gods as our own or we theirs!

Therefore the [i]real 'logic' is this; when the particularist elder beliefs were exchanged for the universalist Christian belief, this paved the way for the debilitating idea that all of Humanity is One, and that it shares the same 'Father'.
This is the very root of Anti-Racism.


Pope Pius X spoke these words to a gathering of French pilgrims on April 19, 1909:"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion..."

Isn't non-White immigration an enemy?
Even if those non-whites are Catholics?
If the Church supports the immigration of non-whites into your country then hasn't the Church actually become that 'enemy'?
Hasn't it then ceased to be a "divine religion"?
By their deeds ye shall know them.


In fact it was from Christianity that Europe adopted its concepts of nationalism and nationhood.

That I doubt very much. Tacitus & Caesar tell us [writing long before Christianity became the state religion of Rome and then by extension of conquered Europe] that the Germans were very much a pure race who jealously guarded that racial purity.

We also hear in Tacitus of the proud nationalism of Herman [or Arminius] who fought against 'Roman slavery'.

Herman The Cheruscan
by Kveldulf Hagan Gundarsson(link):
http://www.hammerofthorkindred.org/herman.html

http://www.bessel.org/images/arminius.jpg
Herman - too Proud?


in other words you want nations to worship themselves, to become narcissists. Again, that's not love, but a perversion.

No; but it is you who are "exaggerating".

However, if you are to be taken at your word, then I would say that national & racial egotism and pride is far preferable to universalism and self-hatred, if you really want to put the dilemma in that way.

Taras Bulba
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 06:29 PM
It's not that I don't understand that; the concept that "the nations and races of the world" were created by God is easy to understand. It is rather that I don't believe it.
Not only do I disbelieve in such a 'creation', I also find it rather unacceptible that this one God created all of the nations and all of the races.

That's your problem, not mine.



Therefore, to a non-believer there is no "logic" in being devoted to God over one's own race & nation.

Therefore there is no logic in a non-believer trying to comment on a belief system that he himself does not actually adhere to. So in the name of common sense, I suggest you butt out of any discussions concerning Christian teachings of honour and nationhood, since by your own admission your own sense of logic prevents you from understanding it to being with!



This belief I find perverse in the extreme.

I could care less what you think about the teachings of the Holy Church.




This belief in one God fathering all the races & nations of the world is the pernicious Father of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism.

How on earth can you assert that, when the Bible clearly warns against multiculturalism with the story of the Tower of Babel.



Of course, to the religious fanatic, Nationalism is considered a heresy [the use of the qualifying word "exaggerated" is a red-herring].

No, it is not a red-herring. There are too many references within Christian literature talking about how devotion to ones kin is a indeed a noble and natural virtue.



Belloc listed Nationalism [exaggerated or unexaggerated] in his book of Modern Heresies.

The fact you claim Belloc was condemning nationalism as a whole(as opposed to exaggerated nationalism) clearly demonstrates how little you know of the man. He was concerned that exaggerated nationalism would destroy the civilizational unity of Europe(founded and united by the Christian faith). He was not condemning devotion to nation and kin as a whole. And this becomes clear even within the very book you mention:

"Patriotism has always existed, and always will, so long as men are bound in societies. One may feel that emotion of loyalty towards a tribe or a town, a tiny district, a feudal group and lord, a large nation or a whole vast culture; but it is always present and always must be present. For if it were not, society could not hold together. Now, men must live in society; and therefore by every law of man's nature (that of self-preservation, that of the organ arising to supply the need, etc.), devotion to what the Greeks call 'the City' must be present. One may go much further and say that in sound morals patriotism must not only be present in every society, but should be strong; because the absence of it is inhuman and unnatural."
- Survivals and New Arrivals p. 140




That I doubt very much.

Read and weep Moody!

"The Bible, moreover, presented in Israel itself a developed model of what it means to be a nation - a unity of people, language, religion, territory and government. Perhaps it was an almost terrifyingly monolithic ideal, productive ever after all sorts of dangerous fantasies, but it was there, an all too obvious exemplar for Bible readers of what every other nation too might be, a mirror for national self-imagining."
--Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood pg. 18


"Old Testament beliefs in chosen peoples and sacred territories were a continual source of inspiration and language for a dynamic providential history among so many Christian peoples in Europe and America; that it in turn was vital for their growing sense of national identity in the early modern epoch. The religious aspect, rooted in the Hebrew Bible, appeared therefore to complement and reinforce their sense of common ethnicity.

That in turn had implications for nationalism. As a European ideology and movement, it owed much to biblical and religious motifs and assumptions; in many ways these have been more important than their secular forms and doctrines."
--Anthony D. Smith Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity pg. viii




Tacitus & Caesar tell us [writing before Christianity became the state religion of Rome and then by extension of conquered Europe] that the Germans were very much a pure race who jealously guarded that purity. We also hear in Tacitus of the proud nationalism of Herman [or Arminius] who fought against 'Roman slavery'.

The Germans of Tacitus time were not operating on any basis of nationalism, but petty-tribalism. Same thing with the Greeks; they owed more loyalty to their individual polis than to their nation. One was an Athenian or Spartan first, Hellenic second.

Moody, I strongly suggest you stop with this before you humiliate yourself even further. You clearly know nothing about Christian teachings on nationhood!

Moody
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 07:53 PM
Therefore there is no logic in a non-believer trying to comment on a belief system that he himself does not actually adhere to. So in the name of common sense, I suggest you butt out of any discussions concerning Christian teachings of honour and nationhood, since by your own admission your own sense of logic prevents you from understanding it to being with!

Please keep a civil tongue sir; this is a discussion in the Ethics & Morals section [a section that is not specific to Christianity], and therefore the issue hinges around the concept of pride within honour.

This is very pertinent to the general question of national pride and racial pride, for obvious reasons.

'Belief' or 'Faith' itself is, by its very nature, illogical; especially when it is used to butt-ress the singular belief that all the races and nations of the world are the 'children' of one God!

Nationalists and racialists, whether they be believers, non-believers or agnostics have a right to examine such pernicious, to my mind, beliefs.


I could care less what you think about the teachings of the Holy Church.

You are actually presenting a contradictory position here; you are very emotional when such pet 'teachings' are challenged, and yet say you could 'care less'!

I find the teachings you quoted, that "all nations are the children of God", and that "at death racial differences disappear", to be perverse and destructive from a racial nationalist perspective.

Now if those anti-racialist teachings were true and proven, then that would be another matter. But that they are merely 'beliefs' means that they can, and should be, challenged.


How on earth can you assert that, when the Bible clearly warns against multiculturalism with the story of the Tower of Babel.

When you [or the Church] says that "nationalism is a plague and a heresy", then I think that we can see that you have much in common with the Anti-Racism movement.
As for the Tower of Babel tale, like many Biblical stories from the Middle East, this can be interpreted a number of ways, none of which are particularly clear [the Bible rejoices in contrary interpretations and self-contradictions, particularly between New and Old Testaments].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel



There are too many references within Christian literature talking about how devotion to ones kin is a indeed a noble and natural virtue.

What is meant here by 'kin'?
Is it the kindred referred to by Jesus Himself, when he spaketh;

"And everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life".
[Matthew 19:29]

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven".
[Matthew 23:9]

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me".
[Matthew 10:37]

These are purported to be the words of the founder of the religion!



The fact you claim Belloc was condemning nationalism as a whole (as opposed to exaggerated nationalism) clearly demonstrates how little you know of the man.

I said that he listed "the intense Nationalism of our day" 1929[/b]] as a Modern Heresy or 'Opposition' of Christianity.

"The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism"

See section 4 of Belloc's [i]Survivals and New Arrivals: The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church;
Link;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SURVIV.HTM#0



Read and weep Moody!"The Bible, moreover, presented in Israel itself a developed model of what it means to be a nation".

I disagree; I see the State of Israel as the antithesis of Aryan nationhood.
Indeed, you are seemingly advocating Zionism as the model!


"Old Testament beliefs in chosen peoples and sacred territories were a continual source of inspiration and language for a dynamic providential history among so many Christian peoples in Europe and America; that it in turn was vital for their growing sense of national identity in the early modern epoch. The religious aspect, rooted in the Hebrew Bible, appeared therefore to complement and reinforce their sense of common ethnicity.

A second-hand nationalism based on the Old Testament Jews?
What could be more perverse than to base your own nationalism on that of another nation?
Isn't it interesting that the America you mention above, allows and props-up Israel's own Semitic nationalism, while at the same time condemning the white Aryan nationalism of its own people in the name of the Brotherhood of Man!


That in turn had implications for nationalism. As a European ideology and movement, it owed much to biblical and religious motifs and assumptions; in many ways these have been more important than their secular forms and doctrines."

Yes; these biblical motifs have led to the tremendous double-standards of today!
Not surprising when we have a Bible which praises the Jewish nationalism of God's Chosen on the one hand, but tells us that we are all the 'children of God' on the other hand!
A Bible which glorifies the exaggerated nationalism of the Jews, but condemns the exaggerated nationalism of the Gentiles!
Any one smell a rat?



The Germans of Tacitus time were not operating on any basis of nationalism, but petty-tribalism. Same thing with the Greeks; they owed more loyalty to their individual polis than to their nation. One was an Anthenian or Spartan first, Hellenic second.

Nothing "petty" about tribalism.
All Aryan nationalism is rooted in the tribe, in the kin group, in the family, in the ancestors, & in the Blood.
Racial Nationalism is an extension of that; an evolved form of that, as populations have grown [the populations of ancient Germania, Sparta and Athens were much smaller than that of today's Germany or Greece, of course].


Moody, I strongly suggest you stop with this before you humiliate yourself even further. You clearly know nothing about Christian teachings on nationhood!

We are discussing the concept of Honour, and in particular the Christian rejection of Pride, under the heading of Ethics and Morals.
So I suggest that it is you who are hi-jacking the discussion towards [self-contradictory] "Christian teachings of nationhood".

Taras Bulba
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Please keep a civil tongue sir;

Pot calling the cattle black arent we?



this is a discussion in the Ethics & Morals section [a section that is not specific to Christianity], and therefore the issue hinges around the concept of pride within honour.

This is a discussion concerning Christian attitudes towards honour, and then you brought up issues about how Christianity(because it rejects pride) also rejects loyalty to ones ethnicity. So dont hand me this, but then again you're famous for words games like these!



'Belief' or 'Faith' itself is, by its very nature, illogical;

Yeah ok.....numerous theologians and philosophers have noted the strong link between faith and the use of reason(logic). St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain are just two examples of such.



You are actually presenting a contradictory position here; you are very emotional when such pet 'teachings' are challenged, and yet say you could 'care less'!

Ahhhh.....ok. There's a difference between spreading lies about what Christianity teachings concerning the existance of nations and simply stating what your own personal opinion is. If you're claiming Christianity is against the existance of nations, I will refute that statement. However, if your argument amounts to nothing more than "well I think Christianity is anti-national and only presents a perverted sense of nationalism"....then quite frankly I dont give a rats ass.

Im not even bothering to refute your claim of me being "emotional", which is largely nothing more than attempt by you to claim you're keeping a cool head while Im not. Nice try.



I find the teachings you quoted, that "all nations are the children of God", and that "at death racial differences disappear", to be perverse and destructive from a racial nationalist perspective.

And again I repeat myself....I DON'T CARE! Your opnion doesn't mean the least to me.



When you [or the Church] says that "nationalism is a plague and a heresy", then I think that we can see that you have much in common with the Anti-Racism movement.

Only when concerning semantics. Anti-racists claim nationalism as a plague from the perspective that nations themselves are the cause, and the cure is to get rid of national identites altogether. Christians claim that an unhealthy self-obsession and "idolatry of the nation" is the cause; and that the cure is a more healthy form of nationalism that will be respectful towards the rights and identities of other nations.

As I explained in another thread, there is a difference between "monocentric" nationalism and "polycentric" nationalism. Christianity favours the latter as opposed to the former.



As for the Tower of Babel tale, like many Biblical stories from the Middle East, this can be interpreted a number of ways, none of which are particularly clear

Across the theological spectrum theologians have noted that the Tower of Babel condemns multi-culturalist-like projects; because they inevitably amount to man thinking he is higher than God.



[the Bible rejoices in contrary interpretations and self-contradictions, particularly between New and Old Testaments].

That only depends on how one looks at the Bible. The Bible doesnt contradict itself, but rather peoples interpretations get contradicted.

And please stop with the old Marconite polemic.




What is meant here by 'kin'?
Is it the kindred referred to by Jesus Himself, when he spaketh;

"And everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life".
[Matthew 19:29]

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven".
[Matthew 23:9]

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me".
[Matthew 10:37]

These are purported to be the words of the founder of the religion!


*sigh* the basis of those verses is that love for God comes before love for everything else. Nowhere EVER does that imply that one cannot love others(nation, family, friends, etc).

To say so is to completely misread Christianity, which you have done so many times both in this debate and others we had in the past. Your interpretation of Christianity bears more resemblence to Islam than to Christ.



I said that he listed "the intense Nationalism of our day" 1929[/b]] as a Modern Heresy or 'Opposition' of Christianity.

Im well aware of what Belloc wrote, and it is still clear that your argument was refuted. Belloc was referring to exaggerated nationalism, not nationalism as a whole(as you tried to present).



"The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism"

See section 4 of Belloc's [i]Survivals and New Arrivals: The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church;
Link;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SURVIV.HTM#0


Yes Ive read that....in fact I just quoted from that text above. Now what's your point?



I see the State of Israel as the antithesis of Aryan nationhood.

And again, I dont really care what you think; and it has little bearing on the historical fact that the model of the Israelites was influential in forging European concepts of nationhood.

But oh well, I'll play along for a moment. Steven Grosby in his studies of nationalism in the ancient world noted that concepts of ethnic-statehood like that found in Biblical Israel was quite common throughout the near-East in places like Egypt, Babylon, and I also believe Persia. Now if Im not mistaken, some claim those civilizations as having an "Aryan" basis to them.



Indeed, you are seemingly advocating Zionism as the model!

I find this assertion laughable at best Moody! I have made myself known to be a great critic of Zionism.




What could be more perverse than to base your own nationalism on that of another nation?

That's actually quite common Moody....nationalist movements seeking inspiration from other nationalists and modelling themselves off each other.

Interestingly enough, when many German tribes converted to Christianity; they actually preferred the model of Biblical Israel as opposed to Rome. Many German leaders saw they had more in common with the Israelites than with the then collasped Roman Empire. In fact, that was the main reason why they argued for maintaining the old custom of polygamy, on the grounds that the Patriarchs of the Old Testament practiced it as well.




Isn't it interesting that the America you mention above, allows and props-up Israel's own Semitic nationalism, while at the same time condemning the white Aryan nationalism of its own people in the name of the Brotherhood of Man!

Which is irrelevant to the discussion here.




Yes; these biblical motifs have led to the tremendous double-standards of today!

An absurd assertion at best!



Not surprising when we have a Bible which praises the Jewish nationalism of 'God's Chosen' on the one hand, but tells us that we are all the children of God on the other hand!
A Bible which glorifies the exaggerated nationalism of the Jews, but condemns the exaggerated nationalism of the Gentiles!

Moody clearly demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the Bible and its meaning pertaining to the discussion at hand. When one reads the Old Testament, you will notice that it is actually quite critical of the Israelites; especially in many of the Prophecy books.



Any one smell a rat?

Yes, your arguments in this discussion.





Nothing "petty" about tribalism.

Actually there is. More below.



All nationalism is rooted in the tribe, in the kin group, in the family, in the ancestors, in the Blood.

Absolutely true, but you're not describing petty-tribalism. Petty-tribalism is basically where you have sub-divisions of one nations fighting and competiting with each other, rather than uniting into one powerful force.

Like how the 12 tribes of Israel united into one nation.



We are discussing the concept of Honour, and in particular the Christian rejection of Pride, under the heading of Ethics and Morals.
So I suggest that it is you who are hi-jacking the discussion towards "Christian teachings of nationhood".

Moody, how on earth can I hijack a discussion that I basically started?

You were the one who first claimed that the Christian rejection of pride was responsible for Europeans rejecting their own heritages. Again, dont hand me this nonsense!

Moody
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Pot calling the cattle black arent we?

When have I told you or anyone else to "butt out" of a discussion?
Such unhonourable incivility is always indictative of someone who has lost the argument.


This is a discussion concerning Christian attitudes towards honour, and then you brought up issues about how Christianity(because it rejects pride) also rejects loyalty to ones ethnicity. So dont hand me this, but then again you're famous for words games like these!

No, you began by introducing Bowman's book on 'Honour' [which deals with the concept in the widest sense, not just the Christian] to the Forum.

In the 'review' of Bowman which you then appended to that introduction, you concentrated on Christianity [claiming that Bowman had not done so enough for your tastes!], while making a thinly veiled attack on Paganism in the process.

Stating that Christianity condemned pride, you at the same time asserted that Paganism's failing was due to the opposite, i.e., to Paganism's embracing of pride.

Now, Paganism has given us some great ethical material; for example, in Nordic and Celtic heathenry.
This Pagan ethics includes the extolling of Pride as a virtue.
I gave an example of the Proud Germanic Hero in the person of Herman or Arminius.

I have always held the position that polytheists like Pagans, and monotheists like Christians can work together if they;

(i) are genuine racialists, and
(ii) refrain from making abusive attacks on each other.

Therefore, when one makes a gratuitous attack on the other, the result can only be divisive and counter-productive.

If you had kept to the firm ground of asserting that Christianity rejects Pride, it is unlikely that I would've been compelled to comment as this is rather an obvious statement [and you do know your Christianity].

However, when you venture into the realm of attacking Paganism in exaggerated language, talking of narcissism, egotism etc., then you must be challenged.

Not only that; but when you extend that attack on Pagan Pride to make an attack on Racial Pride and National Pride, then you must be brought to book.

Such intemperate attacks as you make here will split the movement apart, with Christians on one-side and Pagans on the other, with agnostics and atheists somewhere in the middle or on the outside.


numerous theologians and philosophers have noted the strong link between faith and the use of reason(logic). St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain are just two examples of such.

They are both Catholics, and Maritain was a follower of Aquinas.
Of course, such men believe themselves to be rational even when they make what Kierkegaard called the 'leap of faith'.

But 'faith' by its very definition in a religious context [any religion] is illogical.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion.


There's a difference between spreading lies about what Christianity teachings concerning the existance of nations and simply stating what your own personal opinion is. If you're claiming Christianity is against the existance of nations, I will refute that statement. However, if your argument amounts to nothing more than "well I think Christianity is anti-national and only presents a perverted sense of nationalism"....then quite frankly I dont give a rats ass.

Those inferences are all your own. I responded only to assertions and statements made by yourself [and those who you quote from to support your assertions].

It was you who put forward statements which claimed that 'racial difference disappears after death', not I.
It was you who put forth the idea that nationalism was a 'plague' on humanity, not I.
It was you who asserted that all races are God's children, not I.

I merely objected to those notions only after you had put them out.
Those statements and others which you claim are Christian can only be destructive of racial and national pride - because they actually say so themselves!
Such statements actually assert that race is not the highest value!
Look back on your own postings on this thread.


Christians claim that an unhealthy self-obsession and "idolatry of the nation" is the cause; and that the cure is a more healthy form of nationalism that will be respectful towards the rights and identities of other nations.

Is idolatry the harmful thing here?
If so, isn't it then just as harmful to idolize God as to idolize anyone else?
Why is it supposedly 'unhealthy' to idolize your race and your nation, but apparently 'healthy' to idolize Jehovah?


As I explained in another thread, there is a difference between "monocentric" nationalism and "polycentric" nationalism. Christianity favours the latter as opposed to the former.

Again, is it the 'monocentrism' that is harmful in itself?
If so, why is monocentric nationalism harmful, but monotheist religion unharmful?
Why is it wrong to love One Folk, but right to love One God?


Across the theological spectrum theologians have noted that the Tower of Babel condemns multi-culturalist-like projects; because they inevitably amount to man thinking he is higher than God.

That too lacks even the most basic philosophical rigour.
Multiculturalism takes place with the blessing of Christianity [as you have them say, 'we are all God's children', just as multiculturalists say that 'all cultures are equal']; mutliculturalism actually rejects national and racial pride in the same way as those Christians you quoted.


love for God comes before love for everything else. Nowhere EVER does that imply that one cannot love others (nation, family, friends, etc).

As long as that love of self, family, tribe, nation etc., is always second to the love of a Hebrew God.
So your message is this; put the love of your race and nation second.
That is what I object to.


Belloc was referring to exaggerated nationalism, not nationalism as a whole(as you tried to present).

Not so; I quoted his headings;

The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism

That he qualifies this by praising what he calls 'patriotism' instead does not wash. He, like you, requires a diluted nationalism which is scaled-down to a kind of geriatric patriotism over which the Church can have ultimate dominion. Why? Because to him, God, not Blood & Soil, comes first.



the model of the Israelites was influential in forging European concepts of nationhood ...

'Forging' may be the right word.
The Israelite model is essentially a theocratic one; a model which has the Israelites as the slaves to their God YWH whose name they daren't even say, whose image they daren't even make.

This slavishishness was utterly alien to the Aryan Pagans who walked with their own gods.

Just as Christianity poisoned the Pagan notion of Pride, so too did it pervert the Pagan sense of Blood & Honour.


I have made myself known to be a great critic of Zionism.

By holding up the model of Jewish nationalism you are promoting Zionism whether you know it or not.


That's actually quite common Moody....nationalist movements seeking inspiration from other nationalists and modelling themselves off each other.

And we need to reject all that is common. The Aryan peoples have their own Gods - let's be done with this idolatry of a strange God!


Many German leaders saw they had more in common with the Israelites than with the then collasped Roman Empire.

And this is no doubt the root of Protestantism. However, neither Israel nor Rome is in Germany. The German spirit must rid itself of all alien spirits in order to return to its true nature.


When one reads the Old Testament, you will notice that it is actually quite critical of the Israelites; especially in many of the Prophecy books.

I didn't say that it wasn't; I just mentioned that the Jews regard themselves as God's Chosen People; No doubt some Gentiles agree with them.


Petty-tribalism is basically where you have sub-divisions of one nations fighting and competiting with each other, rather than uniting into one powerful force.

Which you rejected above, apparently preferring "polycentric" nationalism to monocentric nationalism. Once again you contradict yourself.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 02:44 AM
Such unhonourable incivility is always indictative of someone who has lost the argument.

Yes Moody you make this claim in everyone of our discussions: poor little you is being picked on by big bad old me. Being a little overly sensitive arent we? If you cant stand my somewhat aggressive style of discussion, then I suggest you move on to another topic.

As for me losing the argument, well if you want to feed yourself that delusion, then by all means I wont stop you. Whatever makes you feel happy in the morning.



No, you began by introducing Bowman's book on 'Honour' [which deals with the concept in the widest sense, not just the Christian] to the Forum.

Yes and?



In the 'review' of Bowman which you then appended to that introduction, you concentrated on Christianity

Whatever Moody, my mentioning of Christianity takes up only one section of my reivew. I talk about many other topics besides Christianity. It's clearly you whose concentrating on Christianity, not me.




[claiming that Bowman had not done so enough for your tastes!]

A book that claims to be a full-scale history of the concept of honour that only spends 5 or so pages detailing the Medieval concepts of chivalry is rather skimpy wouldnt you think? As I also stated, Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity provides far more information in that regards. And Bowman knee-jerks Baudy's work; which I find highly uncalled for. I certainly explained some of the flaws of Baudy's works, but also explained that despite that it provides a more fuller account of the subject matter(ie a historical look into concepts of honour and heroic masculinity).

Have you actually read either Bowman's or Baudy's books btw?



while making a thinly veiled attack on Paganism in the process.

I really dont know where on earth you got this from. I actually spent far much more time explaining the Christian concept of honour(which Bowman incorrectly describes) than I do about paganism. In fact I didnt even mention paganism at all in my review. You were the one who first mentioned paganism.



Stating that Christianity condemned pride, you at the same time asserted that Paganism's failing was due to the opposite, i.e., to Paganism's embracing of pride.

Moody, I really cannot say where on earth you came up with that. Yes, I said Christianity condemns pride; but again I did not mention anything about paganism.

In fact the first within this discussion I even mention anything about pagans is when concerning tribalism among pre-Christian peoples and how that does not equate to nationalism.




Now, Paganism has given us some great ethical material;

This is a strawman. Where on earth did I deny this?



for example, in Nordic and Celtic heathenry.

A better example IMO would be Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics



This Pagan ethics includes the extolling of Pride as a virtue.

Yeah and what of it?



I have always held the position that polytheists like Pagans, and monotheists like Christians can work together if they;

(i) are genuine racialists, and
(ii) refrain from making abusive attacks on each other.

Therefore, when one makes a gratuitous attack on the other, the result can only be divisive and counter-productive.

Yeah ok, it's neo-Pagans like you who continously make absusive and rude assaults upon Christianity; far more than vice versa.



If you had kept to the firm ground of asserting that Christianity rejects Pride, it is unlikely that I would've been compelled to comment as this is rather an obvious statement [and you do know your Christianity].

Yes I asserted that Christianity rejects pride, so why did you comment in this thread?



However, when you venture into the realm of attacking Paganism in exaggerated language, talking of narcissism, egotism etc., then you must be challenged.

Yeah ok Moody....as I said the first time I ever mentioned anything about paganism was in relation to tribalism and nationalism. You were the one who first stormed into this discussion raving about pagan this and pagan that.



Not only that; but when you extend that attack on Pagan Pride to make an attack on Racial Pride and National Pride, then you must be brought to book.

Ahhh excuse me....you were the one who attacked Christian concepts of nationalism first, calling it "perverse in the extreme".

Quite honestly Moody, within this thread you've said far more negative things about Christianity than I have about paganism.

Seriously I think you jumped into this discussion without really knowing what this is really about and sadly as a result youve been making some shaky arguments.




They are both Catholics, and Maritain was a follower of Aquinas.
Of course, such men believe themselves to be rational even when they make what Kierkegaard called the 'leap of faith'.

So you're trying to minimize the level of reason that Aquinas and Maritain operated on. I sincerly suggest you read both mens' works. Also, it should be noted that within his 5 proofs for the existance of God, Aquinas actually outlined many elements of what we now know as the laws of physics; a few centuries before Netwon's outlined them. So Id careful about bashing Aquinas as a deluded man of faith.




Those inferences are all your own. I responded only to assertions and statements made by yourself [and those who you quote from to support your assertions].

Actually you havent. Just within this one post, you've largely made strawman arguments and misrepresented what my position actually is.



Why is it wrong to love One Folk, but right to love One God?

This is a strawman. It's clear Moody doesnt even know what monocentric nationalism means.



Multiculturalism takes place with the blessing of Christianity

Yeah ok, then why are multiculturalists constantly screaming about how much Christianity is a racist religion? Why did Pope Benedict XVI criticised multiculturalism because it largely meant abandoning your own heritage? Yeah Christianity and multiculturalism are the best of friends.



mutliculturalism actually rejects national and racial pride in the same way as those Christians you quoted.

This is completely absurd. All the men Ive quoted above we staunch nationalists and patriotic towards their own folk.

And thats all I can respond to today. Tommorrow Ill deal with the rest.

Moody
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Yes Moody you make this claim in everyone of our discussions: poor little you is being picked on by big bad old me. Being a little overly sensitive arent we? If you cant stand my somewhat aggressive style of discussion, then I suggest you move on to another topic.

No I am stating only a point of fact: in post #8 in this thread you told me to, quote, "butt out" of this discussion.
This is an example of an unwarranted, unnecessary, retarded and gratuitous rudeness on your part towards myself, as I have already underlined.
That is not "aggression" [how you flatter yourself!], it is merely bad manners, and was obviously meant to derail the discussion in hand.
What I objected to next was your false accusation that I too had made the same or similar remark to you.
I had not, and I never would.
Being rude is one thing, but telling lies is another.
Again, your behaviour is not "tough" but puerile, and I will always point it out. So if you don't want it to be mentioned, then stop making such remarks.
If you want to learn how to argue 'tough', then follow my own example: I can be tough without stooping to insults and lies.


It's clearly you whose concentrating on Christianity, not me ... I actually spent far much more time explaining the Christian concept of honour than I do about paganism. In fact I didnt even mention paganism at all in my review. You were the one who first mentioned paganism.

Then I wonder whether it was you who wrote that 'review'. For in post #2 where you claim to 'review' the book 'you' put;
"Many times honour can too easily degrade into egotism & protecting one's pride & vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, & was a major element to the pagan sense of honour. The Christian sense of honour on the other hand condemns this ... The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian & the pagan concepts of honour".
[Taras Bulba post #2, this thread, my emphasis]


Moody, I really cannot say where on earth you came up with that. Yes, I said Christianity condemns pride; but again I did not mention anything about paganism.

You mentioned paganism negatively twice in your second post on this thread of yours!


You were the one who first stormed into this discussion raving about pagan this and pagan that.

Not true. The first two posts in this thread were both by yourself. In the second one you made the remarks against paganism which I have already quoted.


Ahhh excuse me....you were the one who attacked Christian concepts of nationalism first, calling it "perverse in the extreme".

Actually, in your post #6 you say that for "nations to worship themselves" is a "perversion". It was you who set the tone for this discussion claiming [via quotations] in that same post;
"The Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest palgue of the human race".

That is a grossly abusive attack on nationalism that is not excused by using the weasel word "exaggerated".


Quite honestly Moody, within this thread you've said far more negative things about Christianity than I have about paganism.

Quite inaccurate; it is you who have used the strongest language in calling nationalism a "plague" and a "perversion", and in using "condemnation" against paganism, as well as telling me to "butt out" [the cheek of it all!].

You are 'condemned' by your own words, sir.


Yeah ok, then why are multiculturalists constantly screaming about how much Christianity is a racist religion? Why did Pope Benedict XVI criticised multiculturalism because it largely meant abandoning your own heritage? Yeah Christianity and multiculturalism are the best of friends.

I know that it is not all one-way traffic, and I accept that there are elements to Christianity that are in line with a Folkish outlook, just as I will admit that there elements in Nietzsche which do indeed clash with a Folkish outlook.
However, it is you who promoted anti-nationalist statements from the Church in this thread leading me to think that you do not discriminate between that aspect of the Church which clearly does promote multiculturalism [and you seem blind to], and that aspect which does not [which is underground].
How else could you offer the following quote with your approbation?;

"Man will not be justified in God's judgement by belonging to this or that race".
[Tara Bulba post #6]

Is that the God of the Chosen People speaking?

....

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 06:18 PM
No I am stating only a point of fact: in post #8 in this thread you told me to, quote, "butt out" of this discussion.

Yes, since basically you dont seem to understand the issue being discussed and by your admission you claimed you can never understand the Christian position on many issues. If so, whats even the point of you trying to comment on Christian positions?



Then I wonder whether it was you who wrote that 'review'. For in post #2 where you claim to 'review' the book 'you' put;
"Many times honour can too easily degrade into egotism & protecting one's pride & vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, & was a major element to the pagan sense of honour. The Christian sense of honour on the other hand condemns this ... The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian & the pagan concepts of honour".
[Taras Bulba post #2, this thread, my emphasis]


Oh ok Im sorry....I forgot those statments, I dont remember every single word I mentioned. From what you were saying it sounded like you claimed I made a large-scale attack on paganism, although this only serves to prove my point that nothing of the sort happened.

I largely made a very basic comparison of the Christian and pagan concepts of honour. I did not dwell too much on the issue and very quickly move on, something you're unable to do.



You mentioned paganism negatively twice in your second post on this thread of yours!

More like I passively mention paganism within the context of explaining the Christian concept of honour. Claiming that was a full-blown assault on paganism is a gross exaggeration on your part.



Actually, in your post #6 you say that for "nations to worship themselves" is a "perversion".

Worshipping yourself is a perversion....it's goes by the name of narcissicism.



It was you who set the tone for this discussion claiming [via quotations] in that same post;
"The Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest palgue of the human race".

That is a grossly abusive attack on nationalism that is not excused by using the weasel word "exaggerated".

That is not a grossly abusive attack on nationalism, and your continual attempts to dismiss the key term "exaggerated" as a "weasel word" clearly demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the subject matter being discussed.

Hence why Im constantly suggesting that you "butt out" of this discussion, so that you avoid humilitating yourself further.



Quite inaccurate; it is you who have used the strongest language in calling nationalism a "plague" and a "perversion",

Exaggerated nationalism mind you.



[the cheek of it all!].

Yes Im such a cheeky fellow as Bridie mentioned.



You are 'condemned' by your own words, sir.

Yeah ok Moody, maybe you need to lose your sense of overly dramatizing everything!




However, it is you who promoted anti-nationalist statements from the Church in this thread

For the last time Moody, it's EXAGGERATED nationalism that I condemn; not nationalism as a whole. However, you seem incapable of understanding that....and frankly thats not my problem.




"Man will not be justified in God's judgement by belonging to this or that race".
[Tara Bulba post #6]

Yes and?

Moody
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 07:08 PM
I largely made a very basic comparison of the Christian and pagan concepts of honour.

Yes, and it was a biased comparison.
In the interest of balance I offered an alternative interpretation.
I said that far from being an impediment [as you suggested], paganism's promoting of pride was a good thing and can be compared to notions such as racial pride.

Indeed, I then made the philosophical point that the Christian rejection of pride as a sin, may have resulted in, or combined with, the rejection of racial pride in our era.

That is an interpretation that I stand by, because you managed to quote Churchmen condemning national pride which confirmed my suspicions.


Worshipping yourself is a perversion....it's goes by the name of narcissicism.

Worshipping your own nation was called a "perversion" by your Churchmen! Worshipping your own nation is not a perversion in my book, anymore than worshipping your own God would be a 'perversion' in your book.

When the Church sides aganist Racialism and Nationalism then the Church must be exposed by its own words as I have done here, quoting back your own statements, some of which you had even forgot making.
That's why I won't butt out, if only to remind you of what you actually said.


For the last [**** expletive deleted by Moderator] time Moody, it's EXAGGERATED nationalism that I condemn; not nationalism as a whole.

I know that; however, you have refused to give examples of what that so-called "exaggerated" nationalism is!

Until you do that, I will take your Christian attacks on nationalism as attacks on Race & Nation per se.

Until you can convince me otherwise - by actually telling us what particular nationalism [with names and dates] you regard, so dramatically, as a "plague on humanity"!

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Yes, and it was a biased comparison.

Im speaking from a Christian perspective.



Indeed, I then made the philosophical point that the Christian rejection of pride as a sin, may have resulted in, or combined with, the rejection of racial pride in our era.

An assertion that cannot be backed up really. Rather the reintroduction of pagan ideals of racial pride helped lead to many violent excesses, which created an excessive backlash.



Worshipping your own nation was called a "perversion" by your Churchmen!

Yeah and?



Worshipping your own nation is not a perversion in my book, anymore than worshipping your own God would be a 'perversion' in your book.

You're confusing worship with idoltry.



When the Church sides aganist Racialism and Nationalism then the Church must be exposed by its own words

Yeah the Church is so damn anti-national!

"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion... Yes, it is worthy not only of love but of predilection that country (patrie) whose sacred name awakens in your mind the most cherished memories and makes quiver every fiber of your soul, that common country which has cradled you, to which you are bound by bonds of blood and by still nobler bonds of affection and tradition."
--Pope Pius X, April 19, 1909

"Men have always lived in groups. Apparently it is a part of God's plan that they should. And one of the things which have enabled them to live in groups has been the loyalty —the patriotism—which God has implanted in their very nature. This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One's 'country' connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One's 'native land'—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one's forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one's children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future."
--Patriotism, Nationalism, and the Brotherhood of Man, composed by the Catholic Association for International Peace

"So awfully alive is that Christian thing called a nation that its very death is a living death. It is a living death which lasts a hundred times longer than any life of man."
--GK Chesterton, "The Thing Called a Nation," in The Lay of Kossovo, p. 32.

"[S]maller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."
--Pope John Paul II, Feburary 2000

"The term 'nation' designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that families and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. Therefore, in human history they cannot be replaced by anything else."
--Pope John Paul II, Memory and Identity pg. 69-70

"Christ never by teaching or example resisted or withstood the spirit of true nationalism."
--1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh

"The point is that Catholic Christianity, understood in a wide sense, was both incarnationalist and universalist - it tended to both identify closely with particular communities, cultures, and nations, and to insist upon a communion transcending such particularities. It oscillated, one might say, between Old and New Testament sources of inspiration."
--Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism pg.203



as I have done here,

You havent done squat except misrepresent the views of the Church on this issue. Particularly with Belloc, whom you have clearly not read. Ive posted his quote concerning patriotism(which you desperately try to dismiss), plus I can easily quote him in which he further explains what he means by "nationalism".




quoting back your own statements, some of which you had even forgot making.

Yes Im sorry, I forgot two short sentences that I typed....big deal.



That's why I won't butt out, if only to remind you of what you actually said.

Nit-picking other peoples posts is not that impressive Moody.



I know that; however, you have refused to give examples of what that so-called "exaggerated" nationalism is!

For all your nit-picking my posts, apparently you failed to notice that I did give an example of such: the perverted sense of "patriotism" that's promoted within American society today.

But oh well, I'll use another example. Much of the aggressive and imperialistic nationalisms that existed in the 19th century. Somehow national pride rested upon the domination and extermination of other nations.

In fact lets look at the British example. Some "nationalists" glorified the empire and how Britian was on top of the world. On the other hand, there were the "Little Englanders" who believed that imperialism was an affront to British national dignity.

Moody
Thursday, June 29th, 2006, 05:09 PM
The reintroduction of pagan ideals of racial pride helped lead to many violent excesses, which created an excessive backlash.

This is too vague - who, what, when and where?


You're confusing worship with idoltry.

One man's worship is another man's idolatry.
Who are these nationalists who you accuse of 'worshipping/idolising' their nation?


Yeah the Church is so damn anti-national!;"This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One's 'country' connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One's 'native land'—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one's forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one's children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future."

If the Church agrees with this type of patriotism, then what is the "exaggerated" forms which it apparently regards [from your own quote] as being a "plague on humanity"?


You havent done squat except misrepresent the views of the Church on this issue. Particularly with Belloc, whom you have clearly not read. Ive posted his quote concerning patriotism(which you desperately try to dismiss), plus I can easily quote him in which he further explains what he means by "nationalism".

I've read an awful lot of Belloc [and GK Chesterton], getting cheap copies of most of their books from a local Catholic bookstore.
I actually think they are both great writers - Belloc's overall conception of the history of Christian Europe is superb, and GKC is a sublime essayist.
However, as Catholics they resisted race-based nationalism.

As you are using Belloc to voice your views and say that with him, you reject racial [or "exaggerated"] nationalism, please tell us what kind of nationalism this is; we need some examples [one man's exaggeration is another man's emphasis].


apparently you failed to notice that I did give an example of such: the perverted sense of "patriotism" that's promoted within American society today.

Well you've contradicted yourself; you say that "patriotism" is good, but "exaggerated nationalism is bad".
Modern American patriotism can hardly be described as "nationalism", let alone an exaggerated nationalism.
Indeed, even patriotism seems a misnomer for what in America today is rather a selfish and rapacious capitalism.
This cannot be an example of "exaggerated nationalism", by any stretch of the imagination, and it seems perverse to use 'American global capitalism' as a stick to beat 'racial-nationalism' with.


I'll use another example. Much of the aggressive and imperialistic nationalisms that existed in the 19th century. Somehow national pride rested upon the domination and extermination of other nations.

Too vague; and anyway, imperialism is imperialistic rather than nationalistic, and the nationalisms of the 19th century tended to be anti-imperialist!

You have still not given a clear, precise and convincing example of this so-called "exaggerated nationalism" - I'm beginning to think that this is a 'straw man' argument!


In fact lets look at the British example. Some "nationalists" glorified the empire and how Britian was on top of the world. On the other hand, there were the "Little Englanders" who believed that imperialism was an affront to British national dignity.

There you go: the Imperialists were not nationalists, they were 'imperialists'.
As Henry VIII said long ago, 'Britain' is an empire within itself, it is not a nation.
It contains distinct nations within it; i.e., the Celtic nations such as Scotland and Wales, and the Anglo-Saxon nations of England etc.

Britain is not a 'nation' but a united kingdom [hence UK] [whereas England could be considered to be a nation, for example].

Even more so, when Britain aquired its extensive Empire which covered the globe and brought in many different races and cultures, it would be impossible for any British Imperialist to be a 'nationalist' as such, as the British Empire was a huge conglomerate of many nations.

The so-called 'Little Englander'* would believe in English independence [from the UK, e.g., from Scotland, and more importantly from the European Union].

So is this English Nationalist guilty of "exaggerated nationalism" according to the Catholics?
I wouldn't have thought so as right-wing Catholics in Britain tend to encourage such 'little Englander' nationalism.

You cannot call the Imperialist a 'nationalist' for reasons I have already given: the Imperialist is a multi-nationalist.

{* While inline with current usuage, this is not quite the historically correct use of the term 'Little Englander', which apparently dates "from the time of the Second Boer War (1899-1901). The term then designated people who wished the British Empire to extend only to the borders of the United Kingdom itself, i.e., these were people who wished to end British rule over India, South Africa, Canada, etc., and to withdraw the empire to domestic borders.
Since those times, the term has come to mean any Englishman who sees only 'Little England' and who is unaware of the wider world ..."}
See link for full explanation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_England

Amorsite
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 08:11 AM
What is your opinion about this particulary human notion that has been in one form or the other throughout most of history?

Bridie
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 08:27 AM
How do you define honour? Like this?....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor

Amorsite
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 08:42 AM
How do you define honour? Like this?....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor
I would say it is the need of the mind to feel itself special and relentless somehow at every time.

Tabitha
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 09:58 AM
I would say that honour is of great importance. It is, at its best, a selfless characteristic that benefits others as much as it benfits the individual. I regard honour as a beacon that will lead an individual on to a path of right and noble action. Today we often read of honour at its most twisted, such as "honour killings," these can in no way be described as honourable actions as honour should expand the common good.

Honour is a gift that a man gives to himself. As articulated by the wife of Rob Roy McGregor in Alan Sharps' screen play.

Amorsite
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 10:36 AM
I would say that honour is of great importance. It is, at its best, a selfless characteristic that benefits others as much as it benfits the individual. I regard honour as a beacon that will lead an individual on to a path of right and noble action. Today we often read of honour at its most twisted, such as "honour killings," these can in no way be described as honourable actions as honour should expand the common good.

Honour is a gift that a man gives to himself. As articulated by the wife of Rob Roy McGregor in Alan Sharps' screen play.
I dont mean honor as a medal you win or as a condecoration or status in a society. I mean it as the psychological need the mind seems to have to feel itself exclusive and spotless in certain things.

Tabitha
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 10:40 AM
I too wasn't discussing medals etc but a person's own integrity.

Bridie
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 01:29 PM
Yeah, I still don't really get what you personally mean by "honour" Raboy. So you mean one's instinctive need for being virtuous even when it means sacrifice? Integrity? What?

Jack
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Honour is immensely important, and does indeed have a reasonable basis.

Moody
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 01:12 PM
I voted yes, of course.

But there is a question here; can honour be taken too far?

An example that springs to mind is the cult of the duel which still persisted in 1930s Germany.

Duelling was popular particularly amongst the SS for obvious reasons, as it was seen as the quintessence of honour.

However, through this practice, many good quality Germans were killed in what were sometimes merely petty squabbles.

Hitler himself thought this a terrible waste of Aryan humanity and gave strict orders that it be stopped.

So there does seem to be a case for arguing that honour become counter-productive.


Another point; amongst Muslims in Britain there has been a spate of honour killings.
As you must know, this is where a parent will kill a daughter because she has fallen in love with somone of the wrong religion, wrong family etc.,

This may not be counter-productive as it could be used to maintain racial purity.

Amorsite
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Honour is immensely important, and does indeed have a reasonable basis.
what basis do you mean?im talking about honor even without a society and norms. do you believe there is a psychological mechanism that makes it necessary?

Jack
Monday, August 14th, 2006, 02:52 PM
what basis do you mean?im talking about honor even without a society and norms. do you believe there is a psychological mechanism that makes it necessary?
It has nothing to do with one's mental composition. Do you agree that man requires - insofar as he can obtain them - facts in order to live? For example: you are being charged at by a pack of wolves, and you have a shotgun in your hands. Will you mentally remain skeptical about the existence of the shotgun, or have total faith that the shotgun and the shells are real and will serve the purpose of killing the animals before they kill you? A piece of knowledge you would stake your life upon were you in the right conditions is what I call a fact. It is bluntly obvious that ethics is a practical science for regulating behaviour within and between societies. Therefore I state that a man of honour is a man who will state nothing but facts which others may then use - this is necessary for the functioning of any society, as the enhancement of the common good necessarily is advantageous for the advancement of the self. To put in a shorter way: a man's word is his bond.

Arrian
Tuesday, August 15th, 2006, 02:40 PM
I voted yes.

Duelling has resulted in loss of precious blood, and while its important to consider on honour being taken far, I feel its equally important to reflect on honour being taken far enough?

For instance, I look at the Japanese committing Seppuku, and so nevermind duelling another person, but do we have what it takes to chop parts of ourselves in honour-sacrifice?

Until the moment comes, I do not know and I am not sure if I/this age could live upto such acts, though I'd like to think I/we could.

Does honour really manifest in any painful ways these days? Nietzsche said the fear of pain and suffering has come to characterize modernism. (Not that I am necessarily equating honour with pain, but where is the strong feeling of love and respect that one would cut off his finger for his mentor, say?)

I think we may have become specialists in enduring any amount of mental pain, but on the physical level?

Are razor-bladers who cut themselves strong or weak in that sense, from this context of enduring pain on physical level?

Moody
Thursday, August 17th, 2006, 04:34 PM
I feel its equally important to reflect on honour being taken far enough?
For instance, I look at the Japanese committing Seppuku, and so nevermind duelling another person, but do we have what it takes to chop parts of ourselves in honour-sacrifice?
Does honour really manifest in any painful ways these days? Nietzsche said the fear of pain and suffering has come to characterize modernism. (Not that I am necessarily equating honour with pain, but where is the strong feeling of love and respect that one would cut off his finger for his mentor, say?)
I think we may have become specialists in enduring any amount of mental pain, but on the physical level?
Are razor-bladers who cut themselves strong or weak in that sense, from this context of enduring pain on physical level?

No - because Honour is not motivated by pain but by shame.

You will notice that Honour is only held in the highest esteem in 'Shame Cultures'.

In such cultures a man would rather die than be brought to Shame.

We moved from a Shame Culture to a Sin Culture.

Arrian
Thursday, August 17th, 2006, 08:03 PM
No - because Honour is not motivated by pain but by shame.

You will notice that Honour is only held in the highest esteem in 'Shame Cultures'.

In such cultures a man would rather die than be brought to Shame.

We moved from a Shame Culture to a Sin Culture.

Yes, and that I agree with.

I am asking, to use your line, motivated by shame, does this time still have the strength to keep honour if those codes [personal or otherwise], not demanded, but involved a degree of physical pain on one's own self.

Moody
Friday, August 18th, 2006, 02:15 PM
Yes, and that I agree with.I am asking, to use your line, motivated by shame, does this time still have the strength to keep honour if those codes [personal or otherwise], not demanded, but involved a degree of physical pain on one's own self.

I think the main difference is that in a Shame Culture the 'pain' of Shame, if you like, is public.

Whereas in a Sin Culture the 'pain' of sin is private shame before God, but this is not sufficiently public to give it the necessary gravitas for a Shame Culture which needn't believe in God but can still be effective as a Shame Culture].

The Sin Culture depends on a strong sense of conscience.
However, it is possible for a man who has the burden of sin on his conscience to carry on his daily life without others knowing.
It trains you to be sneaky and hypocritical - something very difficult to pull off in a Shame Culture.

However, the concept of conscience is breaking down as fewer and fewer believe that a God can see into their souls.

Of course this all rests on the idea that a God who is completely perfect and judging actually exists.

In a Shame culture, there is less of a metaphysical problem; the family inculcates into children that bringing Shame on the family will result in complete ostracisation and worse.
In a Shame culture, all institutions work on that basis, so that a family will be punished by its neighbours for having a 'black sheep' and so on - seemingly 'cruel' by modern standards in the West.

This is all very practical and public, as I said.

Of course, in such a culture there are no 'safety nets'; an outcast recieves no help at all, no 'welfare'; also he has no 'rights'.
Also such cultures must be small in size, where all are known to each other to a degree.

Attempts to use 'shame' as a weapon against young thugs in the West have not been too successful; 1, because the thugs have no inherent sense of 'shame' (!), and 2, because those thugs tend to wear their outcast state as a badge of [perverse] 'honour'.

This is part of our problem; the death of God has not only brought about the decline in a sense of sin, but also the equality mad human rights fanaticism of modern 'democracy' has virtually eliminated Shame.

af Torestorp
Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 03:47 AM
Yes, I do indeed believe that honour has a reasonable basis. This in the sense that the concept of honour stands in full accordance with and constitutes an integral part of the natural condition of man. Rather than being a thought or idea imposed from without, the origin of the honour-concept is to be sought in the natural disposition of man, regardless of to what extent he is capable of actualizing it in himself.

From the above also follows that honour is to be thought of as what constitutes the most purely and truly human aspect in the nature of man, in that it seeks to overcome the animal condition. In rightly exercising it man removes himself from and rises above all that is common, ignoble and lowly, all that proceeds from wordly and sentimental concerns for well-being and practicality. In this sense there is also a spiritual dimension to the concept of honour, beyond that of mere ethics. It epitomizes a specifically aristocratic and warrior type of spirituality, that throughout history perhaps has found its prime expression in what has come to be known as 'the Age of Chivalry' of Medieval times.

As for the practical application of the concept of honour, I do agree to that there can, and sometimes should, be a limit to how far the upholding of honour is to be taken, but one should also keep in mind that honour really has nothing to do with what is 'useful' or 'productive'. These are base and simple concerns when compared to that of honour, which is of a far higher nature. Of course honour can be useful and have practically beneficial effects, but honour, in essence, is not guided by or determined by usefulness, or any other wordly utilitarian concerns for that matter.

Kurt Steiner
Sunday, February 7th, 2010, 03:23 PM
In a war against savage and bestial opponents, honor is insane. Why?
Because the first Law of Honor is to save your people. If you practice some pseudo-honor that lets enemy subversion, terror and mass murderers run free, then you are dishonoring the first and primary law , survival of the tribe.
Consider Germany in WW2. There is no doubt that, as in WW1 (when Germans were accused of eating babies instead of sauerkraut) WW2 Germany was falsely accused of millions of lying pages of dishonarable crimes. Then when the Soviets, Czechs, French, Yugoslavs, Brits, Americans, Dutch, Norwegians and whoever ...mass-murdered, raped, tortured and burned alive (While robbing the nation of its industry, scientific discoveries, best minds and bravest, strongest survivors) vulnerable and disarmed men, women children, wounded and the elderly, they were given a phoney excuse.
"The Germanskis did it to us, now we get revenge. " Although there is strong evidence that among the "allies" murder and torture was a fixture of their gangsterism before Germany even had a chance to retaliate.

For those who really believe the 80 years of hate-German propaganda and the "Hitler-is-Demon" and Stalin-is Good" bullcrap, I can overwhelm you with contra evidence.

Shouldn't you, personally, look for the truth too?

Halfr
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010, 04:24 PM
There might be a lack of honour in contemporary society, but I aim to act in an honorable fashion none the less. Maybe it should go without saying one, as somebody who supports the idea of honour as a virtue, should be true to your ideals in a world without the same. This is however not always the case. We live in the age of the excuse. People find every excuse to be sloppy and without obligations.

Cuchullain
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 11:16 AM
Having grown up in a Catholic society I can identity with the idea of inner shame and guilt. These emotional reactions are built into me now I am afraid but I feel if I can identify these reactions then I can deal with them in a more rational way.

I do see a difference between the inner and outer shame. If I feel that if I do something which dishonours an other and this makes me feel guilty then it is not because I am ashamed as such. I feel that I have acted in a way that has opposed my own moral values therefore it is morally necessary for me to rectify it.

I will not be commuting suicide or involving myself in self flagellation but I will be honourable enough to see my mistake and act accordingly to resolve the matter.:thumbup

Gretel die Katze
Tuesday, February 28th, 2012, 12:16 PM
- What is your personal code of honour (if any)?

- Why is honour as a concept dying in modern society?

- Is this a good or bad thing?

- What is honour? The texts in the thread only deal with the expressions of honour, but what is it?

Honor is a sense of personal, internal moral integrity, whatever those internalized values may be. It means you stand up for what you believe in, even if you are amongst enemies or strangers, you keep your own value system and defend it to varying degrees. It means morals that you hold dear that you would fight for. That means different things to different people in different cultures. Usually, though, some common themes like honesty, self-defense, defense of one's people, and loyalty are there.

Honor can also simply refer to how your reputation reflects on "your people" i.e. the reason why a woman's honor was once considered sexual chastity in the past is because this would reputably reflect on her family's morality, and her own loyalty to her husband (or betrothed).

The Southern concept of honor - the one I'm most familiar with having grown up in the American South - is that you do not sit by and watch certain things go on, like seeing someone hit a lady or be rude to your mother or disrespect your family or even trespass on your property.

I think honor still does matter to some Southerners in the reputation sense, as well, and that is why particularly in the deep South you'll see a tendency for people to practice "good manners" and to be friendly to their neighbors, and also generous with things like a glass of tea or dinner or helping a community member on the side of the road, because THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT DECENT PEOPLE DO.

In some cases Southern honor really is about integrity to be kind and helpful, in other cases it can be a pure show of lies that merely serves as a veneer to keep one's "reputation" in tact. It depends on the person and the situation.

Personally, I believe in honor in both senses, but I find that reputation honor in particular can be taken too far, when it becomes a dishonest show instead of genuine values. When I was younger it really bothered me for people to put on this kind of "show" if it seemed false. I understand why people do it more now that I'm older, but I'm still partial to inner integrity honor more so than reputation honor.

I may care more about honor because of my Southern up-bringing, I don't know, because I can be vengeful or want to "set things to rights" and I do believe there are things that all decent people should do...but I don't necessarily advocate violence, and I really am annoyed by people who put on shows of having this fake kind of honor just for the sake of what other people think of them, and I can sometimes even embarrass people who put too much stock in that sort of "honor."

I don't understand the Japanese sense of honor of like, dying rather than losing, but as I say, honor varies from culture to culture, and it also may be different for men than women on some primal level, that maybe men are more likely to find honor in war or battle, because I certainly don't comprehend dying just so I could win.


One extreme example of "reputation" honor that bothers me are the kinds of "honor killings" that can take place in some Middle Eastern Muslim countries where they'd rather murder a female family member than risk their family's name in the community. That kind of "honor" makes me sick. It's the "false show of pretense" honor that annoys me even on a less deadly level in some other cultures.

Honor is dying out in society, in terms of personal inner integrity, because people are becoming so "tolerant" and "liberal" that it can border on amoral stupidity, in my opinion.

I don't even identify as a conservative, but I can identify an extreme form of liberalism where essentially nothing is sacred, everything is permissible and all value systems are viewed as being equal, and I think this can lead to a decline in personally integrous honor, the sort of honor where you fight for your own internal, personal morals.

It also may happen in larger populations or urban areas that people have no sense of honor to themselves or others, because people are treated as numbers rather than as human beings, so a general lack of respect for both self and others causes people to be without honor, in a sad way.

On the other hand, I think we can do without the extreme forms of honor that lead to things like duals at dawn and "honor killings."

Gretel die Katze
Tuesday, February 28th, 2012, 01:06 PM
I think the main difference is that in a Shame Culture the 'pain' of Shame, if you like, is public.

Whereas in a Sin Culture the 'pain' of sin is private shame before God, but this is not sufficiently public to give it the necessary gravitas for a Shame Culture which needn't believe in God but can still be effective as a Shame Culture].

The Sin Culture depends on a strong sense of conscience.
However, it is possible for a man who has the burden of sin on his conscience to carry on his daily life without others knowing.
It trains you to be sneaky and hypocritical - something very difficult to pull off in a Shame Culture.

However, the concept of conscience is breaking down as fewer and fewer believe that a God can see into their souls.

Of course this all rests on the idea that a God who is completely perfect and judging actually exists.

In a Shame culture, there is less of a metaphysical problem; the family inculcates into children that bringing Shame on the family will result in complete ostracisation and worse.
In a Shame culture, all institutions work on that basis, so that a family will be punished by its neighbours for having a 'black sheep' and so on - seemingly 'cruel' by modern standards in the West.

This is all very practical and public, as I said.

Of course, in such a culture there are no 'safety nets'; an outcast recieves no help at all, no 'welfare'; also he has no 'rights'.
Also such cultures must be small in size, where all are known to each other to a degree.

Attempts to use 'shame' as a weapon against young thugs in the West have not been too successful; 1, because the thugs have no inherent sense of 'shame' (!), and 2, because those thugs tend to wear their outcast state as a badge of [perverse] 'honour'.

This is part of our problem; the death of God has not only brought about the decline in a sense of sin, but also the equality mad human rights fanaticism of modern 'democracy' has virtually eliminated Shame.

I wonder if this idea of "honor" then vaguely exists in the South because of the stronger ties of smaller communities - sometimes families who have known one another for generations - still exist and you CAN, indeed, be shamed by your neighbors and community. Shaming was used on my own mother within her life time by people within our community.

I don't think that shame is still as prevalent in the South now as it was in the Old South - and I think I heard this "shame, shame on you" thing a lot growing up (literally, my grandparents said "shame on you" in front of other people) and my mother still says "shame on him, how could he do that" when talking about someone who has done something terrible, to other people.

I've noticed that when I've morally disagreed with someone on-line, I like to "call them out" publicly, especially if they've disgusted me with their ethical behavior, and I wonder if that's an extension of my own training to think that certain kinds of people deserve to be shamed.

However, the kind of honor that exists in cultures where more social shaming goes on can and does in the West *sort of* but not to the extent that it once did, as recently as my own mother's young adulthood.

"Honor" can also mean a very strong sense of personal moral integrity, though, too. Like an inner thing. You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. That kind of stubborn fighting for inner ethics.

There are different kinds of honor, though I understand that the kind of honor you speak of exists most extremely (and probably dangerously) in Asia, where you are pretty much an extension of your people rather than an individual, and it continues because of collectivism.