Go:bekli

1) I suspect that at the end of WW2 both the Germans and the Japanese asked themselves what would happen to them if they were treated in the way they had treated those whom they conquered. The plausibility of tit for tat and the possibility of national extinction helped them focus on the essential. Over time they have become less humble and more assertive. 2) Reasonable people/nations ask how they can better themselves; dumb people and failed nations look for someone/(some nation) that , in their opinion, fares worse than themselves. If none can be found, they (1) create a new criterion that shows that they are better and (2) delve in demonology. 3) Personally it bothers me not if the wife of the neighbor is prettier than mine and I will not like mine more if the neighbor?s happens to be uglier. 4) Being dumb is not bad; unfortunately, and as a rule, the self-anointed patriots tend to be dumb and a permanent risk to the nation they possibly love much but certainly not too well. 5) My definition of patriotism is ?I love myself, my family, my village, my region, my country, my species?, more or less in that order. 6)

Fearing that our political leadership may have not understood the concept of Realpolitik, our friend Recep Tayyip Erdogan (whose Pontic great grandfather decided that regarding his finances Allah was more munificent than Jesus) made, mostly for our benefit, the following statements: (can be read at http://www.france24.com/en/20160102-turkey-needs-israel-says-erdogan and elsewhere). "Israel is in need of a country like Turkey in the region," Erdogan said in remarks to Turkish reporters published in leading dailies Saturday. "And we too must accept that we need Israel. This is a reality in the region," said Erdogan.

Unless the geopolitical situation really changes, I doubt that anything significant (and positive for Greece) will happen any time soon. Because, as things stand (1) What we want does not appear to be feasible, (2) What might be feasible is not acceptable to us, and (3) Turkey is the local bully while Greece is neither able, in her opinion, nor willing to stand up to Turkey. We may though end up believing our own disjoint thoughts and propaganda; in which case we may manage to gift to Turkey what she is not able to grab today.

Tantra, As soon as I read your classy reaction (above) to the old, long, boring, and dyspeptical interview I posted yesterday, I called my friend Francis and demanded that you be canonized on the spot. No-can-do me dijo mi compadre Francisco, necesitamos dos milagros. To expedite this affair, I decided to engineer a second instance in which my atrabilious nature and my choice of a long and pointless text will elicit a saintly response. Here is the text I chose:

Note: The posts concerning Gallipoli and the contrast between the events and the national perception reminded me another set of events/perceptions that are more recent and closer to home. About 9.5 years ago two planes collided over the Aegean. . The Turkish pilot was rescued and survived, the body of the Greek pilot was never found. A few days later Eleutherotypia published an eye-opening interview with the ex-chiefs of the Air Force and navy of Greece. If a translation to English is necessary, I will provide the best I am capable of. It should be noted that if this interview were to appear today, the title would be 40

If I am not wrong, at the time Australia had a White Australia policy. Its purpose was to keep out of Australia all but the English and the North Europeans provided that they could speak English. Famously, when a group of Maltese tried to go to Australia in 1916, it was given an ?English dictation? exam in Dutch! Well, if you live in Australia but think of yourself as Englishman, it makes sense to fight for England. Be it at Gallipoli or in South Africa for more than one year after the Australian Independence.

I am of the impression that nationalism is a modern phenomenon (roughly 200 years old) and that, therefore, our understanding of remote events suffers when current beliefs and ideas are used to explain the past ideas and events (e.g., the behavior of Andronicus Dukas at Manzikert). But, methinks, the important question lies elsewhere. If, perchance, the text concerning the ?dance? is indeed badly written and the information provided the byproduct of past nationalistic raving, who, if any, will fix this entry of the Phantis-wikipedia? And what process will be followed so as to ensure that the fix will be an improvement? More important, one must wonder if similar entries in the Phantis-wikipedia were properly edited and are reliable.

1) It doesn't matter what they were singing. It was a heroic action only Greeks were capable of. Most likely, there was neither singing nor dancing. There was a mass suicide attempt (some survived). As for the noblesse of the gesture, let me cite the not much different (minus the massive for the two first instances) precedent of Samsun, of Razis (also a Hebrew), and of the Sicarii at Masada.

If I ever manage to open this thread, the opening comment will be in my next post.

I am under the impression that this thread has acquired a Mr Hyde and Dr Jekyll aroma. Mister Hyde commits crimes against the collective national memory (or the lack of same) and Dr Jekyll is egging him on! But, luckily, the world is full of descendants of Greeks who were educated at the local "

I am a simple man, simpleton according to my wife, who cannot keep in his mind two incompatible ideas. Such as receiving a like and the advice to not write what earned me the like! I was told that sometimes the true meaning of what was expressed may be the opposite of the literal interpretation of the utterance. But this does not help any. When I must choose between two incompatible statements, how can distinguish among ?#1 is false?, ?#2 is false?, and ?both #1 and #2 are false?? Whatever, our national poet stated that

I am a simple man, simpleton according to my wife, who cannot keep in his mind two incompatible ideas. Such as receiving a like and the advice to not write what earned me the like! I was told that sometimes the true meaning of what is expressed may be the opposite of the literal interpretation of the utterance. But this does not help any. When I must choose between two incompatible statements, how can distinguish among ?#1 is false?, ?#2 is false?, and ?both #1 and #2 are false?? Whatever, our national poet stated that

1)

Parlant de barbares et de barbaries:

Mon Dieu! Quelqu'un vient de lire mes balivernes!