You're Right. You're Not A Citizen of This World. We Are, You're Not.
This statement - "I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!" - is hard to grasp. What is most frightening (and maybe comforting in some weird way) is that it seem to be a populistic way to flirt with the elitisic far right wing.
What I have never understood from these types of statements is what they are trying to accomplish by them. I know what, but still not. They really mostly seem silly, sensational populistic with such little intellectual substance that it sometimes gives me the chills. Most of the time it just seems as some strange attempt of fishing for votes in a desperate way. The stereotypical padding on the good ol' boys backs with cigars in their mouths. Silly really.
Anyhow.
You're right, Mr Newt Gingrich. You're not a citizen of this world. We are, you're not... Oh, I almost forgot. You're wrong, global citizens are not intellectual nonsense, but your statement is. :-)
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
READ MORE:
Post a Comment Comments: 2
Well, first off - your clip is not in context to the rest of his discussion. Snippets can be very misleading.
I personally am not a fan of Newt's and don't agree with much of what he says, does, or believes.
To be a "citizen of the world" can mean to dilute your national loyalty to the United States of America or demonstrate a willingness to make changes that put us on a playing field similar to the rest of the world.
I don't know about you, but I think that in the human drama, we are tribal by nature and the "global citizen" push is to have everyone sprinkle love and fairy dust on everyone else so that our inherent and cultural differences disappear like magic.
This is a philosophy that is doomed to fail. There are many people who I respect as individuals, whom I wish only happiness, and whose culture I find fascinating. That does NOT mean, however, that I am interested in adopting their culture or surrendering mine.
I am NOT interested in being a citizen of the world... I will settle for being a citizen IN the world... where different cultures, beliefs, and attitudes exist.
I am NOT interested in being governed by a melting-pot of politicians and bankers because what will ultimately come to pass is that people will become similarly oppressed. Rarely in human nature does the good bring evil up to its standard. The opposite is usually true.
I live in the South West United States where the clash of cultures seems to be increasing tensions and threatening to come to an ugly head. We are not the same. I am no more interested in adopting the Mexican culture than they are of adopting American culture.
We have not historically, nor will we every likely live in a Utopian world where everyone lives in peace and harmony. Regardless of our ability to reason, we are still very much a part of the animal kingdom.
Tolerance is the best we might ever be able to do.
That being said, for once, I agree with Newt on this one.
I personally am not a fan of Newt's and don't agree with much of what he says, does, or believes.
To be a "citizen of the world" can mean to dilute your national loyalty to the United States of America or demonstrate a willingness to make changes that put us on a playing field similar to the rest of the world.
I don't know about you, but I think that in the human drama, we are tribal by nature and the "global citizen" push is to have everyone sprinkle love and fairy dust on everyone else so that our inherent and cultural differences disappear like magic.
This is a philosophy that is doomed to fail. There are many people who I respect as individuals, whom I wish only happiness, and whose culture I find fascinating. That does NOT mean, however, that I am interested in adopting their culture or surrendering mine.
I am NOT interested in being a citizen of the world... I will settle for being a citizen IN the world... where different cultures, beliefs, and attitudes exist.
I am NOT interested in being governed by a melting-pot of politicians and bankers because what will ultimately come to pass is that people will become similarly oppressed. Rarely in human nature does the good bring evil up to its standard. The opposite is usually true.
I live in the South West United States where the clash of cultures seems to be increasing tensions and threatening to come to an ugly head. We are not the same. I am no more interested in adopting the Mexican culture than they are of adopting American culture.
We have not historically, nor will we every likely live in a Utopian world where everyone lives in peace and harmony. Regardless of our ability to reason, we are still very much a part of the animal kingdom.
Tolerance is the best we might ever be able to do.
That being said, for once, I agree with Newt on this one.
(Sorry for not posting the whole video and I will see if I can find it now so that the whole context is there.)
Nevertheless, who said that being a citizen of the world is the same as uniforming cultures, food, beliefs and attitudes? One of the biggest misconceptions I so often face. Think of any family. All its members has their differences. The individuality in the group is important as so is any group identity in the larger societies. It is time to kill this misconception and make it easy to way off this discussion with a wimp.
Continuing I really don't get this statement: "I don't know about you, but I think that in the human drama, we are tribal by nature and the "global citizen" push is to have everyone sprinkle love and fairy dust on everyone else so that our inherent and cultural differences disappear like magic." Who claims that global citizens is the same as all our issues are disappearing? ON the contrary we get more, but we will also get closer to the solution.
The nature of citizenships comes with both rights and responsibilities. For me what I do think accepting that we are a global society is so important as we start to realize we are co-owners of all issues (and rights), we see around the world. We have too many issues around the world that really require us to work together despite all our differences - culturally, ethnically, religiously and so forth. The first step is to accept that the global society is a fact and that we are all members of it - hence global citizen.
This "we and them" mentality is harmful for us all. We instantly shut ourselves out of walking towards a more shared future than fractioned. Why i think this is intellectual non-sense is because it is a cowardly way of walking away from the issues we have at hand. We should address them head on but together so that on one later can say that they were not part of the decision.
Nevertheless, who said that being a citizen of the world is the same as uniforming cultures, food, beliefs and attitudes? One of the biggest misconceptions I so often face. Think of any family. All its members has their differences. The individuality in the group is important as so is any group identity in the larger societies. It is time to kill this misconception and make it easy to way off this discussion with a wimp.
Continuing I really don't get this statement: "I don't know about you, but I think that in the human drama, we are tribal by nature and the "global citizen" push is to have everyone sprinkle love and fairy dust on everyone else so that our inherent and cultural differences disappear like magic." Who claims that global citizens is the same as all our issues are disappearing? ON the contrary we get more, but we will also get closer to the solution.
The nature of citizenships comes with both rights and responsibilities. For me what I do think accepting that we are a global society is so important as we start to realize we are co-owners of all issues (and rights), we see around the world. We have too many issues around the world that really require us to work together despite all our differences - culturally, ethnically, religiously and so forth. The first step is to accept that the global society is a fact and that we are all members of it - hence global citizen.
This "we and them" mentality is harmful for us all. We instantly shut ourselves out of walking towards a more shared future than fractioned. Why i think this is intellectual non-sense is because it is a cowardly way of walking away from the issues we have at hand. We should address them head on but together so that on one later can say that they were not part of the decision.
Reported by pastery
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Related People
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
