Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

vg.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#101

Post by throwaway894345 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #90
throwaway894345 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still a bit confused, but I think the takeaway is that I was conflating "any ethnic persecution" with "ethnonationalism". It sounds like the latter is much more specific ("we don't want Jews in our country" versus "this country belongs to Germans"?)?

I think it's normal to be confused, because the terms and history all have different interpretations and meanings. What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation? The answer to all those questions changes. Which is one of the reasons why I think it's important to be incredibly suspicious of any person who claims to have the answer, and to be able to state with certainty that this country belongs t…

> What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation?

I agree about ethnicities being mercurial; I'm not espousing "ethnicity" as a good way of organizing the world, but it's an established convention. WRT "country", here I mean it in a political/territorial sense--i.e., a territory under control of a sovereign government.

> Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense"

I'm not asserting anything. Ethnicity seems much too mercurial for me to understand well, and it seems like it's easy for people on either side of an argument to flex the definition to suit their ideological ends.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#102

Post by valdiorn »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17
croes wrote: post #15

I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault. In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest". Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him. Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.

And in the news this morning it was called a "drama" or "tragedy", not a "right-wing terrorist attack" as it would have been called if it was done by muslims.

Not defending it, but I'm not sure the concept of "right-wing terrorism" was a commonly known concept at the time.

People commit acts of terror for all types of reasons; holy wars, separatist movements and other political movements, etc. There had been attacks and events in the US for similar right wing reasons, but there wasn't really an umbrella term for this type of event at the time. The fact that this motive is now as commonly known as jihad terrorism is, is rather worrying.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#103

Post by cmrdporcupine »

orwin wrote: post #98
jollybean wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethnonationalism (or at least ethnocentrism) is as old as time, and probably the 'default' mindset. Lack of any other force, especially when combined with the 'nation' part i.e. organized nation state, it might get out of hand, which is why it can come to be a problem, but nominally, it's not. It's probably a defining feature of how we organize ourselves. So the very existence of most of our nations, is a form of 'To…

Ok, so you take belgium "as a failed state", and the "Quebec factor", while ignoring, let's say... Switzerland? > If you look at the borders of Europe and how they flop around over time, it becomes clear that the 'delineating' factor is mostly ethnicity, at least crudely. No. I don't know why you would think that. Brittany was Gallo-Breton, and the two ethnicity almost cut the duchy in two. Two very, very different l…

Just want to say thank you, you made all the points that I wanted to make (but could not summon the energy to) in a reply to this comment.

Should add re: Greece that there was few points at which the Greeks ever even considered themselves any kind of "ethnic "nation"; in pre-Roman times they recognized the existence of "Hellenes" but were constantly at war with each other. In Roman times (which went on much longer there than in the west) they came to consider themselves Romans. And in post-Roman Ottoman times they were one of ethnicity of many in what is now Greece and Asia-Minor and identified more around religion. Until the great ethnonationalist catastrophe of the forced population relocation of Greeks and Turks in the last century in which all sorts of people who didn't fit the "right" categories were mixed up (Christian Turks? Muslim Greeks? etc)

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#104

Post by jacquesm »

roel_v wrote: post #76
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you made seems to be remarkably overlapping with that it is ok to shoot children that are members of some political party, which I hope was not what you intended. You're 'obviously not defending the guy' with words that are pretty close to if not already across that border. When you step into the breach for some monster weigh your words a bit more carefully please.

How can you construe anything I said as defending anything? I was super careful not to do so, my point wasn't even about this particular shooting at all. At some point, when writing or saying anything, you have to rely on the person reading or hearing you to have some baseline of capacity or willingness to understand, which in this case I can only assume you do not have, if you insist (or even imply) that I am someho…

I was just as careful in crafting my reply, and yet you insist on reading it as an accusation.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#105

Post by croes »

vixen99 wrote: post #79
croes wrote: post #15

I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault. In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest". Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him. Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.

Banning his name and pictures? On what basis? I guess you're not also asking for Stalin and Hitler plus a whole galaxy of mass killers who've massacred their way across the 20th century to join the list of banned killers? Or do they not qualify for banning because they killed orders of magnitude more people than the appalling Breivik? Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestio…

Yes, ban their names and pictures too. I'm asking to ban every mass murder because part of their plan is to gain fame to recruit followers and create copycats. I'm against death penalty but not against killing their legacy.

Hitler and Stalin are already partly banned.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#106

Post by jollybean »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #70
throwaway894345 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?

No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you…

So it's very reasonable to point out that there's rarely such thing as 'pure ethnicity' and especially the 'lensing' issue of scale is insightful, and of course that some eras there's more evolution than that others ...

... but none of this upsets the fact that ethnicity is the 'primary weight' in the ultimate definition of borders, other than the borders which are artificial (i.e. political) which is why those tend to collapse.

i.e. " historical Europe or Rome you will rarely find borders defined by ethnicity" Borders very clearly, 'mostly' ethnic, with huge caveats obviously, but those caveats don't change the underlying gravity of ethnicity.

Both a map of Europe today (though it's national) and even a map of the Roman Empire at any given time fairly strongly highlight this.

Roman borders don't help your point - they speak against it.

For a visual refresher here's a bunch of them [1].

Those are mostly ethnic divisions - some of which exist even today.

The fact that Greece has been 'occupied' for ~2200 years, by a whole variety of external powers, and still 'moslty' remains 'Greece' is evidence of this.

Despite your well meaning highlights of the Germanic invasion of Latin Gaul ... there is still a major delineating border between 'Gallia' and 'Germania' today [2].

Same for 'Hispania', 'Britannia', and 'Caledonia' (i.e. Scotland) and 'Hibernia' (i.e. Ireland).

It's an incredibly similar map 2000 years later.

Maybe one factor you could consider in your line of reasoning is the difference between political and ethnic boundaries.

When one group 'invades' another - that's a political change, not necessarily an ethnic one.

It becomes 'ethnic' when the invaders bring along with them considerable cultural power and especially 'bodies' i.e. if there's a lot of migration.

The official language of France in 2021 (and there are many) is French, which is Romantic, despite Frankish invasion.

Charlemagne was more or less a political phenomenon, less so cultural one.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+roman+empire&client=f...

[2] https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_...

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#107

Post by mrkstu »

harpersealtako wrote: post #80
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.

It's the paradox of intolerance because it's a paradox, i.e. a logical contradiction. If you are tolerant to intolerant views, they will gain power and censor your tolerant speech. But on the other hand, if you are intolerant towards intolerant views and censor them, then it's ok for someone else to censor YOU for being intolerant. You can go a step farther and say that "tolerance towards intolerance leads to intoler…

The outcome should be, tolerance for others to express their intolerance, and you to express your intolerance of their intolerance, but no one gets to shut anyone's expression's down.

You can ignore them, don't have to amplify them or give them a platform, but you don't shout them down and you don't allow them to shout others down or stop them from building their own platform.

The Communists in America have been marginalized for a long time in America, but even the most totalitarian/Stalinist believing of them aren't muzzled. Whatever one's extreme belief, a truly robust society has the tools to survive their ability to talk about them.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#108

Post by croes »

valdiorn wrote: post #102
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in the news this morning it was called a "drama" or "tragedy", not a "right-wing terrorist attack" as it would have been called if it was done by muslims.

Not defending it, but I'm not sure the concept of "right-wing terrorism" was a commonly known concept at the time. People commit acts of terror for all types of reasons; holy wars, separatist movements and other political movements, etc. There had been attacks and events in the US for similar right wing reasons, but there wasn't really an umbrella term for this type of event at the time. The fact that this motive is…

There is a long history of right wing terrorism, Timothy McVeigh committed the deadliest act of terrorism in the US until 9/11.

In Italy right wing terrorists from the stay behind army Gladio committed several false flag attacks to prevent the rise of communist parties.

1980 a right wing extremist bombed at the Oktoberfest in Munich.

Before 9/11 it was one of the dominant forms of terrorism. The movie The Sum of all fears is bases on the book of the same name. In the book the terrorists are muslim extremists, but they deemed the scenario as too unrealistic so they changed it to Neo Nazis for the movie.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#109

Post by refurb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #91
refurb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think some 16 year just randomly decided to bring an axe to school and kill someone? None of these are spontaneous.

My school had an ax in the fire equipment locker, and even if a kid's bringing a weapon from home, it's hardly comparable to a multi-month construction of a bomb followed up by a multi-location terror attack on a political party with a whole-ass manifesto playing a role.

Not sure how your school is relevant, but this kid apparently bought it weeks before. Again, we’ll planned and probably considered for months.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#110

Post by jollybean »

orwin wrote: post #98
jollybean wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethnonationalism (or at least ethnocentrism) is as old as time, and probably the 'default' mindset. Lack of any other force, especially when combined with the 'nation' part i.e. organized nation state, it might get out of hand, which is why it can come to be a problem, but nominally, it's not. It's probably a defining feature of how we organize ourselves. So the very existence of most of our nations, is a form of 'To…

Ok, so you take belgium "as a failed state", and the "Quebec factor", while ignoring, let's say... Switzerland? > If you look at the borders of Europe and how they flop around over time, it becomes clear that the 'delineating' factor is mostly ethnicity, at least crudely. No. I don't know why you would think that. Brittany was Gallo-Breton, and the two ethnicity almost cut the duchy in two. Two very, very different l…

This line of reasoning of 'finding examples where ethnicity fails to provide the boundary distinction' doesn't make your case.

I know about 'Switzlerand', thanks. Which is why I brought up USA/Australia/Brazil etc..

Nobody is going to argue that there are many factors that drive boundaries (aka natural boundaries) merely highlighting some counter examples doesn't deconstruct the fact that ethnicity is the primary marker.

"No. I don't know why you would think that. "

Well I don't know what to say because to me, it's 'very obvious' that ethnic boundaries are strong - I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

In fact, if there is 'nuance' it's probably the things that you are stating that are 'less obvious'.

Here is a map of Rome in the year 0 [0]

Here is a map of Europe today [1]

They are incredibly similar.

By pointing out 'that there are differences' doesn't deny that fact.

Again: "Yeah, no. The old Greece western borders stopped before that (linguistically at least), the northern border reached higher, as were the eastern borders."

That borders have shifted materially, doesn't change the underlying fact that 'Greece is strongly related to Greece'.

I think that's the clearest example of where your argument does not cross the threshold you think it does. You say 'the borders have changed' - fine - I say 'it's still pretty much Greece', which it is.

The Duchy of Savoy was mostly a political organization, not an ethnic one, and guess what? It doesn't exist.

The fragmented borders have mostly collapsed - along the lines of ethnicity, crudely. And of course, within those borders, it's fragments like a fractal (great analogy by the commenter above).

And finally, yes, 'natural borders' are obviously a framing reference, because they keep people apart, which allows groups to develop, we agree there.

[0] https://www.conformingtojesus.com/images/webpages/map_roman_...

[1] https://geology.com/world/europe-satellite-image.shtml

Post reply on HN