Blind Uncle Gaspard -- Blind Uncle Gaspard [Early American Folk] (1990s)

Fjosnisse · 3ヶ月前

D'oh. It's a typo, meant to write 1900s.

BananApocalypse · 3ヶ月前

I was just there two days ago, the church is indeed gone. :-(

It's still worth going to see though, the area is by itself is pretty cool!

lasermanmcgee · 3ヶ月前

Just got back from Louisiana and visited most of the locations. We checked out the Burnt Church (sadly it wasn't there), Dot's Diner, and a whole bunch of other places. We never made it to the fort though, since its on the opposite end. Since it had rained the previous night, the church wasn't the easiest place to get to, but it was definitely worth the 1 1/2 mile trek through mud to get there!

Very surreal!

initialsdrummer · 3ヶ月前

Has Tux been updated recently? It went without updates for the longest time and I still see that the latest version on sourceforge is 2013.

Wonka_Raskolnikov · 4ヶ月前

Where will you be when the awareness kicks in?

Fjosnisse · 4ヶ月前

How is it an objective measure? I'm confused.

Fjosnisse · 4ヶ月前

OOC, why are these kinds of posts labelled 'Fluff'? Seems kind of judgmental to me!

invaderjess · 4ヶ月前

Boosh. Thanks! Going to make this tomorrow.

invaderjess · 4ヶ月前

If you wouldn't mind, I'd really appreciate it. I have cans and cans of chickpeas that I don't quite know what to do with and this looks really good :-)

D-Hex · 5ヶ月前

Better to say "i don't know" and refer him to somebody else. If you have to consult the internet for this kind of question, you shouldn't be giving advice about it.

Skinnyred1 · 5ヶ月前

True enough. Putnum's work is pretty similar too in that regard.

Skinnyred1 · 5ヶ月前

Yeah, Varshney is pretty neat. I prefer his piece on alternative rationalities. His work on Indian civil society is interesting too, of course, and it begins to fill an important gap in the literature, but Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society has a lot of methodological problems and most people I speak with agree that the argument is kind of weak.

Skinnyred1 · 5ヶ月前

The appeal is that his definition can be modified, and is often modified, quite a bit. You also have to consider that even though his argument has quite a bit of problems with it (both ontological and methodological) he was at the forefront of nationalism studies. Imagined Communities is definitely considered a canonical work and so, on that alone, it remains widely respected (even if it's not widely accepted).

In addition to this, Anderson did something quite novel by trying to move away from the euro-centric understandings of nationalism by analyzing a different part of the world. Prior to Anderson writing the majority of nationalism scholarship was euro-centric and so Anderson is often respected for trying to move beyond this.

In part too, Anderson is widely read for the same reason that Huntington is widely read. Not everybody agrees with him (fewer agree with Huntington than they do Anderson, imo), but it was a 'field defining' work.

Skinnyred1 · 5ヶ月前

Anderson is kind of funny. He has one of the most widely cited definitions of nationalism (that nationalism is an imagined community, imagined in that it is both limited and sovereign) but few people accept the argument itself. The main criticisms of Anderson are his emphasis on modernity (that nationalism is a modern phenomenon); his spontaneity, since for Anderson, nationalism seems to simply 'emerge' as a result of print capitalism; And, perhaps most scathingly, is the 'inclusivity' of his definition. According to Anthony Marx, Anderson completely neglects the exclusionary elements of nationalism. For Anderson, everybody is part of the community. But, according to Marx, citizenship / nationality has never been fully extended to people and that certain groups of people (for the purposes of nation-building) have been excluded. Consider blacks in America, for example.

More generally, Anderson is part of the structuralism / functionalism approach to nationalism which has, more or less, fallen out of favour (Ernst Gellner is also part of this camp). The main (constructivist) critiques of Anderson's nationalism come from Anthony Marx, Rogers Brubaker, and Ashutosh Varshney.

TrendingBot · 5ヶ月前

Well, I mean, for small subs it's pretty nice to see how it's grown. When I joined the mod team 2 1/2 years ago we were sitting at 16,000 people. Since then we've more than doubled our numbers; it's just nice to see :)

TotallyNotObsi · 5ヶ月前

I'll copy and paste an answer I wrote in this subreddit from awhile back, with some modifications:

There are essentially two levels of debate that are taking place in 'nationalism' studies. The first is between those who view nationalism/ethnicity as being a predominantly modern phenomenon - usually tied to some theory of socio-economic functionalism, i.e., industrializaton - and those who view it as being more 'ancient' (perennialism). At the other level, there are those who view nationalism/ethnicity as being primarily socially constructed (constructivists) versus those who view it as being a tad more 'sticky' (primordialists).

Generally speaking, the trend has been to move away from the second debate (Constructivism vs. Primordialists) since there are very few scholars today who hold to the idea that 'nationalism' and 'ethnicity' are in the blood (which I think is the part of this answer most directly related to your question). That being said, of course, primordialism hasn't completely disappeared and modern primordialists tend to argue that while nationalism and ethnicity are 'constructed', the interpretation and construction of specific identities are tied to physical characteristics that are more or less "sticky". In other words, they disagree with constructivists and the idea that national and ethnic identity are fluid and infinitely malleable (think Henry Hale, Samuel Huntington, Fredrick Barth, etc.)

Fjosnisse · 6ヶ月前

Nope. Just wondering if I'm the only one who thinks he's crazy.

You're probably not the only one who thinks he is crazy, but again.. there's probably a lot of people who don't think he's crazy too.

You are of course right that how he phrases his argument doesn't affect the validity of his argument, but I disagree that post-modernist writing is necessarily going to be obscure.

Yeah, but I never said it was necessarily obscure. I said it has the tendency to be obscure.

Editors exist, and if he wanted people without a background in post-modernism to understand him he should've made an effort to meet us halfway and explain himself.

Maybe he didn't want to? When academics write papers, they write them with a specific target audience in mind. So it's very likely that he wasn't writing it with the intention of it being widely accessible to all, but in fact was targeting individuals at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Fjosnisse · 6ヶ月前

OOC, do you have a more specific question about the work? Other than asking others whether they also feel he was high when writing it?

He's a post-modernist writing about surveillance studies, of course it's going to be obscure. A lot of postmodernist writings are. But, just because you're frustrated with the language he uses doesn't necessarily invalidate his claims..

OmahaVike · 6ヶ月前

Where did the comet get its organic ingredients from?

islackoff · 6ヶ月前

MAD is a specific US foreign policy strategy that emerged during the Cold War, relating to the use of Nuclear Weapons. It's based upon deterrence theory.

Fjosnisse · 6ヶ月前

I suspect it has something to do with you asking for their facebook, e-mail, and phone number.

Fjosnisse · 6ヶ月前

Seems legit

atsilupes · 6ヶ月前

I know that none of the neo-realists I mentioned are specifically addressing constructivism. They do however create theories of international politics that are materialist and rationalist, and that downplay norms and identities. I don't think it would be difficult for OP to draw criticism of constructivism from those works.

To an extent yes, but not all neorealists make purely rational / material arguments. One could make the claim that Robert Gilpin (by focusing on Prestige) is an 'early/basic' constructivist since in that instance he is quite clearly talking about ideas and perceptions in relation to HST.

And you're kind of right that OP could draw criticism of constructivism from those works... but again, since Waltz was writing at a time when constructivism (as we know it) didn't exist in IR theory.. it's maybe not the best one to cite. If anything, a Theory of International Politics (and the subsequent attack against structural realism) in large parts initiated the debate about structural vs. constructivist theories which initiated the debate between positivists and post-positivists.

As for the Mearsheimer article, doesn't he lump in conventional constructivism with critical theory?

Yes, but he shouldn't. And, again, Mearscheimer is a bit of a strange one since his work is considered canonical (and few would argue that it isn't), but there are also very few offensive realists in the world and there's a reason he specifically focuses on China (hint: its one of the only states that actually fits his offensive realist theory, though only imperfectly too).

Six-Year Club	reddit gold Since March 2014
Team Orangered	Verified Email

Fjosnisse

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率