[beepbooptheory]

So, how does the U.S.A fare in this kind of thinking? There isn't such a vast history to pull from there, how can you justify an analogous nationalistic identity/moral character for it without such a big story?

Also, what is the argument for being able to collapse culture and state together, such that the state can/will manifest this trans-historic character of a group of people? Or rather, if we grant that relation either way, does the argument have anything to say about any of the tumultuous events of politics and culture in Russia or China in the 20th century? Are they just hiccups along the overall trend? Such that the CCP isn't an authoritarian regime from without which harms china now, but an inevitable symptom of some trans-historic Chinese culture?

[lambic2]

| There isn't such a vast history to pull from there, how can you justify an analogous nationalistic identity/moral character for it without such a big story?

Well, exactly - that explains a lot of the current political/cultural fragmentation of the U.S. population. Although you can definitely argue that though it is a "short" story in comparison, the founding of the U.S. as a revolution to gain independence from the British Crown to found a state by the people, for the people, with its own constitution and Bill of Rights is a "big" story nonetheless.

As to your other questions - good questions - one could write a whole book (or several) addressing them.

[beepbooptheory]

Isn't this such a sad and ultimately negative worldview though? Instead of an Earth of humans, you have an array of static types. Instead of a history where there is change, where people can overcome things and vie for better world, you seem to say there is only an illusion of change, and really its all just scaling an infrastructure set in stone a long time ago. You look at people far away, and first and foremost comprehend them as a kind different than yourself. Just an entire country of millions, thought at once as a particular!

It makes me sad just knowing people hold these beliefs. It's like internalizing the world as a bad fantasy novel.

[lambic2]

I don't see how it's so negative...there is still definitely change happening and we are not static. Thousands of years ago when we were hunter gatherers, humans would speak different languages living just 10 miles away, and tribes would battle/murder each other just a few miles away. Even as fractured as the U.S. is, we are still in the long run progressing towards are more united humanity (i.e. millions are not battling in a civil war over "differences" like in the 1860's).

[beepbooptheory]

Probably agree on some points here (not sure how the U.S. specifically is leading the way, but whatever), but insofar as I do, it kind of takes the force out of your original point. Differences can be justified by saying "oh they are Chinese, they are just like this," but then you also want to say, "well we can transcend it too". Why can't the Chinese or the Russians? It's wholly unfalsifiable, it gives nothing but justification to nationalistic thinking where its convenient, while still allowing you to drop that as well when that's also convenient. It doesn't say anything at all other than "they are bad because of history/geography, but we can be good despite our history/geography." It is, to be frank, childish nonlogic at best, and potential fuel for fascist tendencies at worst.

And just to recapitualate, this is all just for you to say that the U.S.A and China are distinct enough that the former would never use surveillance on citizens (or whatever) like they do in China. And ultimately proves my point that you can't make that claim without nationalistic thinking!

[lambic2]

1) I never said the U.S. is "leading the way". Just using it as and example. China and Russia also had their own civil wars/struggles and are now more united than thousands of years ago. 2) I don't get where you got the statement "they are bad" since I never said that. "They are bad" is a statement that always oversimplifies the situation when applied to a whole country. The problem is the very small percentage of people in position of power in China/Russia that are hoarding the power/money and there is no mechanism (i.e. popular elections) for the populace to remove them from power.

[beepbooptheory]

Im sorry, I can't really follow how this point is related to any of your others. Regardless, on its face, I would say this new story is maybe a good answer: that because of real democracy, the United States and others are less likely to use surveillance like Russia and China, because those in power who would benefit from such things fear they will lose the vote. But can you honestly tell me, just say over the past 20 years, that this idea checks out? There is already some facts we know that troubles it at least..

And for another thing, intelligence agencies are by design resistant to electoral turnover. And regardless, such agencies for the most part have broad bipartisan support, because in fact, both parties have ultimately the same incentives with stuff like this.

So I'll accept this new thing as a good argument, but history as it has unfolded has made me weary to put such total trust in even the finest examples of democracy and statehood. Because, again, incentive and efficiency are powerful forces to even the most principled people.