• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

globalism push in public schools

hackster

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
388
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
your public schools at work...
it all starts with teaching the young-

Educators Seek Shift in U.S. Schooling to Stress "Global" Values, See Nationalism as "Obsolete"

quotation:

"Our perspective is that of educators who view the current world as one that is highly internationalized and intensely global, rendering nationalistic orientations obsolete. We also view education and educators as involved agents in the construction of a just social world, and contend that this implies infusing the curriculum and teacher education with cosmopolitan sensibilities, frequently, through critical theory and critical pedagogy."
 
One paper, presented at one conference, does not a policy make.

That said, just like all papers, there are some valid points there - and some not so valid ones. I think that, in the US, we are too nationalistic and actually need to take a more global approach in instruction. But I don't see subverting all national pride and patriotism (the extreme) as a viable idea.
 
One should be as (pratically and constructively) critical of ones nation as he can. Always. This does not preclude pride in ones nation.
And if after deep critical analysis of all of the deepest darkest reaches of your nations nature and deeds, you are content with it, and still feel pride in it, then this is the only kind of patriotic pride that in my opinion carries any validity. Anything less is nonsense.
This is what educators should promote. Self aware patriotism. For the blind kind is retarded, dangerous, and in my opinion thus far predominant.

As for the article more specifically. Surveys have shown Americans to be extremely narrow minded when it comes to awareness of the world outside the U.S. I can see many valid arguments for why this is problematic. It is not like teaching them a wider global perspective on international issues is going to replace national identity. It wont. But stdents need to be able to put themselves in the shoes of others if we expect them to understand the world. And I think learning about issues out side of a patriotic context would aid greatly in developing dispasionate and acurate understandings of things. Which will then be acted upon through the lense of nationalism. For e.g. Noam Chomsky, a firm critic of U.S. policy writes in, and mostly for the American people. People may accuse him and robert fisk of being 'biased aggainst the u.s.' But end of the day, they are working for America in America with Americans.

I thus think being able to detach your world view from your interests can be a good thing, even for national interests. A nation needs to understand the world first. Secondly, is suporting eachother. Cause if all a country can do is stick together, but it doesnt understand the world acurately, its doing it wrong.
 
One paper, presented at one conference, does not a policy make.

That said, just like all papers, there are some valid points there - and some not so valid ones. I think that, in the US, we are too nationalistic and actually need to take a more global approach in instruction. But I don't see subverting all national pride and patriotism (the extreme) as a viable idea.
I would say rather, that in the interest of Humanity at large, we should overcome national boundaries with our foes by annexing them.

In fact, since we seem to be seen by the so-called "international community" as being responsible for solving Mexico's problems, annexing that country would make an excellent demonstration project.
 
One paper, presented at one conference, does not a policy make.

I was just going to post the same thing. It's just a paper presented by a couple of people at a conference in Wisconsin. I don't see the big deal

I would say rather, that in the interest of Humanity at large, we should overcome national boundaries with our foes by annexing them.

I somehow doubt that combining India and Pakistan would solve more problems than it would create

In fact, since we seem to be seen by the so-called "international community" as being responsible for solving Mexico's problems, annexing that country would make an excellent demonstration project.

Two things

1) Heeeeeeeeeell no!
2) What makes you think Mexico wants to be annexed?

Local issues are far too important and local groups of people far too diverse for any kind of global unity beyond impotent international organizations. Even the US is too localized, which is why so many people have a problem with the Federal government constantly encroaching on state's rights. The importance of political power being localized is realized by everybody from opponents of Roe v Wade to the potheads in Cali who keep getting raided by the DEA for state sanctioned medical marijuana. Globalization has some nice aspects, but at this point they are extremely overshadowed by the importance of local identity and local interests
 
I somehow doubt that combining India and Pakistan would solve more problems than it would create

India is not a foe. Pakistan is more ambivalent, but would still under my policy, be in a position have some chance to remain independent-- if they were to quickly make improvements..

1) Heeeeeeeeeell no!
2) What makes you think Mexico wants to be annexed?

I'm sorry, could you quote the part where I assigned even an atom of importance to the wishes of the alien state? If we are responsible for Mexico, as so many seem to think, then perhaps it should be our territory.

Local issues are far too important and local groups of people far too diverse for any kind of global unity beyond impotent international organizations. Even the US is too localized, which is why so many people have a problem with the Federal government constantly encroaching on state's rights. The importance of political power being localized is realized by everybody from opponents of Roe v Wade to the potheads in Cali who keep getting raided by the DEA for state sanctioned medical marijuana. Globalization has some nice aspects, but at this point they are extremely overshadowed by the importance of local identity and local interests

I'm not interested in globalization. I merely want international relations to involve all nations in peace and amity-- or else.

In other words, a nation actively hostile to us in a material fashion, or in the case of Mexico, one we are seen as being responsible for should cease to be an independent state.

The time for other options is passing. A hostile state can acquire horrific weapons at any time. In the past such nations could be ignored, and left for future generations to deal with. This is no longer the case.

In the Real World, choices sometimes come down to "them or us." My proposed policy is at least humane in that it seeks to annex the miscreant instead of exterminate him.
 
Last edited:
India is not a foe. Pakistan is more ambivalent, but would still under my policy, be in a position have some chance to remain independent-- if they were to quickly make improvements..

They are enemies of one another and combining them (overcoming their national boundaries with their foes), would not improve the situation

I'm sorry, could you quote the part where I assigned even an atom of importance to the wishes of the alien state? If we are responsible for Mexico, as so many seem to think, then perhaps it should be our territory.

So you think we should invade Mexico and annex them against their will? :shock:

I'm not interested in globalization. I merely want international relations to involve all nations in peace and amity-- or else.

In other words, a nation actively hostile to us in a material fashion, or in the case of Mexico, one we are seen as being responsible for should cease to be an independent state.

Who sees us as being responsible for Mexico, and what gives them the authority to nix Mexico's sovereignty?

The time for other options is passing. A hostile state can acquire horrific weapons at any time. In the past such nations could be ignored, and left for future generations to deal with. This is no longer the case.

How imperialistic. Anybody who disagrees with the US should be forcibly annexed because maybe they might get nukes one day?

In the Real World, choices sometimes come down to "them or us." My proposed policy is at least humane in that it seeks to annex the miscreant instead of exterminate him.

And who has ever advocated America exterminating any other nation? With your views I can only pray that you never gain any significant amount of power
 
They are enemies of one another and combining them (overcoming their national boundaries with their foes), would not improve the situation

As I said, twice now I think, I advise annexing hostiles countries and those we are considered responsible for.

So you think we should invade Mexico and annex them against their will? :shock:
If needed yes. Since their government seems to think us responsible for the well being of their citizens, they are apparently ready to become a territory.
Who sees us as being responsible for Mexico, and what gives them the authority to nix Mexico's sovereignty?
It seems that the Mexican Government does.

I will provide a few links to guide the student.

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/02/27/1997-02-27_mex_blames_u_s__for_own_drug.html

Mexico demands that US allow more immigrants

Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

Mexico Organizing May Day Marches In U.S.

Vice-president of Mexican Senate Demands Visas for Adriana and Olga


Mexican president calls migration 'inevitable,' demands more U.S action on weapons

This is not an exhaustive list, and the student is encouraged to study further.

How imperialistic. Anybody who disagrees with the US should be forcibly annexed because maybe they might get nukes one day?
As an aside, history's great periods of peace and prosperity have typically been periods of Empire. Perhaps we should abandon our childish prejudices against the term.

But to answer your question, I don't propose annexing countries which disagree with us, but those that are actively hostile in a material way-- threats as it were.

This is simple prudence, and acceptance of reality in the 21st Century. The world is too small now to allow savage nations to go unopposed until they make war.
And who has ever advocated America exterminating any other nation? With your views I can only pray that you never gain any significant amount of power
I considered not answering this out of concern that you might be embarrassed, but I overcame my reluctance.

See: Cherokee, Apache, Seminole, Cheyenne, Trail of Tears, Reservation, et al.


As for prayer, I advise all peple who eschew actions to pray, while more robust souls pray and act.
 
As I said, twice now I think, I advise annexing hostiles countries and those we are considered responsible for.

And as I've said, twice now I think without you responding to it, nations combining with their enemies would not solve the problems that those nations have with one another. To say otherwise is ludicrous

If needed yes. Since their government seems to think us responsible for the well being of their citizens, they are apparently ready to become a territory.

Apparently. It's weird that every Mexican and American I've ever met is unaware that Mexico wishes to become a state, though


So because Mexico wants us to change our immigration policy, and because it is interested in the welfare of its citizens abroad, we should annex it? If you're just a troll I commend you. You manage to seem as if you actually hold these ridiculous views.

As an aside, history's great periods of peace and prosperity have typically been periods of Empire. Perhaps we should abandon our childish prejudices against the term.

Dammit - I knew we should have let Hitler be. We could have flying cars by now!

But to answer your question, I don't propose annexing countries which disagree with us, but those that are actively hostile in a material way-- threats as it were.

...and Mexico, apparently. Do you think we should have annexed Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan, the USSR, .....

You really aren't joking about being a globalist, are you?

This is simple prudence, and acceptance of reality in the 21st Century. The world is too small now to allow savage nations to go unopposed until they make war.

Problem is, savage is completely subjective. Much of the Muslim world view America pretty much as satan incarnate. Nations almost universally view their enemies as 'savage' in some way. Your philosophy would lead to constant genocide and war

I considered not answering this out of concern that you might be embarrassed, but I overcame my reluctance.

See: Cherokee, Apache, Seminole, Cheyenne, Trail of Tears, Reservation, et al.

The Genocide of the Native Americans is the blackest mark on American history. If you think that our current national policy should be based on that atrocity it tells me a lot about you

As for prayer, I advise all peple who eschew actions to pray, while more robust souls pray and act.

Eh - that was just a figure of speech. I'm an atheist :mrgreen:
 
And as I've said, twice now I think without you responding to it, nations combining with their enemies would not solve the problems that those nations have with one another. To say otherwise is ludicrous
Ah, I see now, you are comparing us to India! I'll just move along and let that comparison stand on its own feeble merits.

On the other hand, in 1865, the United States did in fact annex a large, separate and hostile country. The results have been mixed, but on the whole, successful.

Apparently. It's weird that every Mexican and American I've ever met is unaware that Mexico wishes to become a state, though

And how many of those Mexicans did you meet in America? Probably quite a few, no? And how many of the Mexican Nationals you met in the United States were here because the job market is healthy in their own country? How many were receiving some form of public assistance here that would be unavailable in Mexico? And How many of them if convicted of a crime would prefer to serve their sentence in Mexico rather than here?

Such people, are being a bit disingenuous when they say they don't wish to be Americans. They have already sold their nationality to us for the benefits we are so lavish with.

I will agree that Mexico is probably unwilling and unready to become a state. I'm thinking that they would need to be broken into several territories for at least a generation. Eventually these sections could be admitted as states, or established as vassal countries. Puerto Rico has essentially adopted the latter role, though of course it isn't usually referred to as such.
So because Mexico wants us to change our immigration policy, and because it is interested in the welfare of its citizens abroad, we should annex it? If you're just a troll I commend you. You manage to seem as if you actually hold these ridiculous views.
Mexico wishes to insert itself in our internal affairs. It has also allowed military incursions across our southern boarder. This is an act of war, for which a response is demanded.

I assure you I am no troll, (though exactly what I am would take too long to explain.) Suffice it to say that I am one of a small minority: a True Adult living in America.

I am aware of history in a way that most people are not. I've learned that crude, but honest words wedded to determination and action will defeat pretty words expressing lovely ideas but not actualized by a strong will almost 100 percent of the time. In out Age, this simple Truth is forgotten.

Best of all of course, are beautiful words and sublime thought combined with iron determination and indomitable will. But this situation is so rare as to make it unlikely that a member of any given generation will encounter it as anything other than history or fantasy.

Dammit - I knew we should have let Hitler be. We could have flying cars by now!
You might, although crystal-gazing is always a doubtful enterprise. But never forget this: you walk in freedom and light on the bones and ashes of millions of murdered innocents. Most recently those victimized by us and the Europeans before us. Our models of government largely descend from the Romans who spread law and civilization with merciless effectiveness. And these are only large and recent examples.

While I certainly oppose the ascent of any particular tyrant, I recognize that I live a much richer life because so many of them succeeded in the past.

...and Mexico, apparently. Do you think we should have annexed Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan, the USSR, .....
Certainly Germany, Japan and Italy. Our conflict with the Soviets was always complicated by the fact that neither side seemed to be quite insane enough to start a "Hot" War.

But as to the former, were such annexations established policy in advanced nations, there would be considerably fewer wars. Had it been established early in the Twentieth Century, there likely would have been no Second World War, and we would be living in a world so altered that it would likely be unrecognizable to us from our current perspective.
You really aren't joking about being a globalist, are you?
No. I am not joking. As Cassandra of old, I am correct and will be ignored. Life is very different if one strives to see Humanity for what it is, rather than what we might wish it to be.

Problem is, savage is completely subjective. Much of the Muslim world view America pretty much as satan incarnate. Nations almost universally view their enemies as 'savage' in some way. Your philosophy would lead to constant genocide and war
This is an illustration of the need for an Actual Adult to take a stand. If you believe you know what is true and civilized, propound your position. Otherwise you are merely a serf, fearfully deferring to your betters to tell you what is right and proper, and ready at the changing fortunes of the powerful to change your allegiance.

The Genocide of the Native Americans is the blackest mark on American history. If you think that our current national policy should be based on that atrocity it tells me a lot about you
I brought up that atrocity to demonstrate that you positions are not grounded in history, as you had made some remark that America would never participate in Genocide.

Obviously, had you grasped the flavor of my posts, you would understand that I propose the use of decisive force in the form of annexation specifically to avoid eventual total war, or our destruction.

Again this advice will not be followed, and the seeds for ever greater and more futile conflicts will be sown. It is a very old pattern.

Eh - that was just a figure of speech. I'm an atheist :mrgreen:
Naturally.

However, the problem is that whilst you are an Atheist, God is not an Anhumanist.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see now, you are comparing us to India! I'll just move along and let that comparison stand on its own feeble merits.

I see you are unfamiliar with the concept of analogy. Here is a link for further reference

On the other hand, in 1865, the United States did in fact annex a large, separate and hostile country. The results have been mixed, but on the whole, successful.

Texas itself voted to be annexed by the US shortly after breaking from Mexico. They certainly were not hostile or forcibly annexed.

And how many of those Mexicans did you meet in America? Probably quite a few, no? And how many of the Mexican Nationals you met in the United States were here because the job market is healthy in their own country? How many were receiving some form of public assistance here that would be unavailable in Mexico? And How many of them if convicted of a crime would prefer to serve their sentence in Mexico rather than here?

Such people, are being a bit disingenuous when they say they don't wish to be Americans. They have already sold their nationality to us for the benefits we are so lavish with.

All of them, actually, but in college. They are not here because of the job market. I go to a top tier college that provides an education unavailable in most countries. That absolutely does not mean that the foreign students I know want to be American.

I will agree that Mexico is probably unwilling and unready to become a state. I'm thinking that they would need to be broken into several territories for at least a generation. Eventually these sections could be admitted as states, or established as vassal countries. Puerto Rico has essentially adopted the latter role, though of course it isn't usually referred to as such.

I'm not going to comment on this because I find the hypothetical situation unamusing to contemplate, sorry :mrgreen:

Mexico wishes to insert itself in our internal affairs.

America has absolutely no right to criticize any nation in the world for this. If that's your standard by which the invasion of a nation is justified you must not think that America has a very good claim to its sovereignty.

It has also allowed military incursions across our southern boarder. This is an act of war, for which a response is demanded.

In situations pertaining to immigration and drug policy, sure. The US has reciprocated many times. Both nations are aware that we are allies, and that any such incursions are not acts of aggression in any way shape or form. If you have any counter examples please post them

I assure you I am no troll, (though exactly what I am would take too long to explain.) Suffice it to say that I am one of a small minority: a True Adult living in America.

I am aware of history in a way that most people are not. I've learned that crude, but honest words wedded to determination and action will defeat pretty words expressing lovely ideas but not actualized by a strong will almost 100 percent of the time. In out Age, this simple Truth is forgotten.

Best of all of course, are beautiful words and sublime thought combined with iron determination and indomitable will. But this situation is so rare as to make it unlikely that a member of any given generation will encounter it as anything other than history or fantasy.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean

You might, although crystal-gazing is always a doubtful enterprise. But never forget this: you walk in freedom and light on the bones and ashes of millions of murdered innocents. Most recently those victimized by us and the Europeans before us. Our models of government largely descend from the Romans who spread law and civilization with merciless effectiveness. And these are only large and recent examples.

While I certainly oppose the ascent of any particular tyrant, I recognize that I live a much richer life because so many of them succeeded in the past.

And the result of the extreme imperialism exhibited by Rome (childs play compared to the massive list of nations we would invade if adhering to your ridiculously aggressive policies) was the Dark Ages when Rome's massive, overblown empire collapsed. Do you really advocate titanic, global empires?

Certainly Germany, Japan and Italy. Our conflict with the Soviets was always complicated by the fact that neither side seemed to be quite insane enough to start a "Hot" War.

But as to the former, were such annexations established policy in advanced nations, there would be considerably fewer wars. Had it been established early in the Twentieth Century, there likely would have been no Second World War, and we would be living in a world so altered that it would likely be unrecognizable to us from our current perspective.

You might say that, although crystal-gazing is always a doubtful enterprise. I personally think that the World Wars we've seen would be replaced by dozens or hundreds of crippling civil wars in such a hypothetical scenario.

No. I am not joking. As Cassandra of old, I am correct and will be ignored.

Sure.....

Life is very different if one strives to see Humanity for what it is, rather than what we might wish it to be.

You could use a dose of your own medicine. Your views distinctly lack foundation in reality. If you had your way, war would be constant for every nation on earth. If China invaded every nation that said something about its immigration policy its 2 million man active military would be woefully undermanned.

Problem is, savage is completely subjective. Much of the Muslim world view America pretty much as satan incarnate. Nations almost universally view their enemies as 'savage' in some way. Your philosophy would lead to constant genocide and war

This is an illustration of the need for an Actual Adult to take a stand. If you believe you know what is true and civilized, propound your position. Otherwise you are merely a serf, fearfully deferring to your betters to tell you what is right and proper, and ready at the changing fortunes of the powerful to change your allegiance.

I don't see how this addresses any of what you quoted

I brought up that atrocity to demonstrate that you positions are not grounded in history, as you had made some remark that America would never participate in Genocide.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that nobody would advocate America engaging in genocide. I've never encountered anybody who thought the Genocide of the Native Americans is anything short of deplorable.

Obviously, had you grasped the flavor of my posts, you would understand that I propose the use of decisive force in the form of annexation specifically to avoid eventual total war, or our destruction.

So which of these justifies the invasion and annexation of Mexico?

Again this advice will not be followed, and the seeds for ever greater and more futile conflicts will be sown. It is a very old pattern.

I can only hope (like that better?) that we never invade Mexico because they dislike our immigration policy. Your advice would make the nuclear era the single most violent in all of history. I don't think humanity would survive your leadership


Naturally.

However, the problem is that whilst you are an Atheist, God is not an Anhumanist.

What is an anhumanist? Google comes up blank
 
Texas itself voted to be annexed by the US shortly after breaking from Mexico. They certainly were not hostile or forcibly annexed.
I referred to the annexation of the Confederacy, I thought the reference to 1865 would have made this clear to the casual observer, as Texas joined the union in 1845.

All of them, actually, but in college. They are not here because of the job market. I go to a top tier college that provides an education unavailable in most countries. That absolutely does not mean that the foreign students I know want to be American.

Then one would suggest that you meet a wider spectrum of individuals.

I'm not going to comment on this because I find the hypothetical situation unamusing to contemplate, sorry :mrgreen:
I didn't write it to be amusing.


America has absolutely no right to criticize any nation in the world for this. If that's your standard by which the invasion of a nation is justified you must not think that America has a very good claim to its sovereignty.
Sovereignty is maintained through power. Nowhere is the old adage more true that "might makes right," than in the affairs between nations. Besides I do not "justify," I present a course of action that would produce a more humane outcome over time.

If you seek justification, then recognize that a country continues to exist because it has either the power internally, or provided externally to resist conquest, or it has so little value that conquest is not tempting to other nations. And then strive to make the fact that your country is free a boon to the rest of the world.

In other words, "justification" is something that nations usually add as an outer covering to deeds they do in their own interest. There are glorious exceptions, but they are rather rare.

It is possible that if the world were populated entirely by countries such as ourselves and those found in Western Europe, and a few other places, freedom could prevail without recourse to might. But that is not the world we live in.
In situations pertaining to immigration and drug policy, sure. The US has reciprocated many times. Both nations are aware that we are allies, and that any such incursions are not acts of aggression in any way shape or form. If you have any counter examples please post them
Report: Border Patrol Confirms 29 Incursions by Mexican Officials Into U.S.

Police face Mexican military, smugglers

Mexican incursions inflame border situation

Officers fear Mexican military encounters will turn violent

Another armed incursion on U.S.-Mexico border

Why Mexican and US Officials Downplay Border Incursions

Washington Times investigator exposes mayhem on the southern border

Why do we Tolerate Mexican Troop Incursions?
by Rep. Duncan Hunter


Alleged Mexican Military Incursion Creates Tension on US-Mexico Border

Reports Cite Incursions on U.S. Border

Well that was easy!

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean
This is a sad admission, but you are to be commended for making it.

And the result of the extreme imperialism exhibited by Rome (childs play compared to the massive list of nations we would invade if adhering to your ridiculously aggressive policies) was the Dark Ages when Rome's massive, overblown empire collapsed. Do you really advocate titanic, global empires?
As I have taken pains to point out, I only advise annexing two classes of country, those for which we are to be held responsible, and those which are a material threat. I can guarantee that if such a policy were initiated, considerably fewer nations would cause us such problems.

You also have distorted history. The Fall of Rome produced the dark ages, not Rome itself. Rome itself produced things like the Pax Romana. Your perspective is inverted.
You might say that, although crystal-gazing is always a doubtful enterprise. I personally think that the World Wars we've seen would be replaced by dozens or hundreds of crippling civil wars in such a hypothetical scenario.
Apparently then, you can indeed find justification for wars, if they prevent greater tragedy? This show maturing thought on your part, bravo!

Your conclusions though cannot be tested, and Ii disagree with them

. . . If you had your way, war would be constant for every nation on earth. If China invaded every nation that said something about its immigration policy its 2 million man active military would be woefully undermanned.
China, following my prescription, would not invade a nation for what it said, but for what it did, and if China were to be held accountable for the welfare of a foreign state. I am repeating myself here. Perhaps you should take notes?

This is the germ of my position as it relates to hostile, determined foreign countries. War is averted by most nations not because it is costly, but because it is unthinkable. Anything less, and war likely will occur at some point.

As for Mexico. The situation is untenable between this country and that.

Remember that countries are artificial constructs and exist mostly as ideas. They fracture and merge frequently in history, peacefully and violently by turns. To an outside observer, the process of merger might appear to be well under way. I wish for the finished product to resemble the current United States much more than I wish it to resemble the current Mexico, for a variety of reasons that I will not explain at the moment.

I don't see how this addresses any of what you quoted
It is a pity that you don't. I hope though that other will.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that nobody would advocate America engaging in genocide. I've never encountered anybody who thought the Genocide of the Native Americans is anything short of deplorable.

Obviously, had you grasped the flavor of my posts, you would understand that I propose the use of decisive force in the form of annexation specifically to avoid eventual total war, or our destruction.

So which of these justifies the invasion and annexation of Mexico?
Well, I illustrated quite definitively that people did in fact advocate genocide in America. Some small number of people still do, to our shame.

As for justification of annexing Mexico, I address that above.


I can only hope (like that better?) that we never invade Mexico because they dislike our immigration policy. Your advice would make the nuclear era the single most violent in all of history. I don't think humanity would survive your leadership
As I have gone to such lengths to explain, in some futility I suppose, it is not the opinions or even the statements of the Mexican Government that motivates my opinion, it is their actions, and manifest demands.

What is an anhumanist? Google comes up blank

And you're in college? Oh very well. the term is an obvious construct using the Greek prefix an- or a- which is a negation. thus we have athiest, and anhydrous (without water). From this site we read:
"[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]The Greek prefix a/an means 'not' (it's referred to as an alpha-privative), so many words beginning with a or an have a negative connotation. Annihilate, which may sound negative, comes from ad and nihil. Notice the double n. The prefix for the Greek negation has the /n/ only before a vowel, so the an- can not come from the negation. The reason the /d/ in ad is manifest as an /n/ is because the alveolar voiced stop consonant /d/ is assimilated to the alveolar nasal /n/ for ease of pronunciation.[/FONT]"
The rile of course, calls for the an- to be used only before a vowel. But as I cite in the example of "anhydrous" we see this version being used before an "h." This reflects the occasional confusion we find in English as to whether to employ the article "a" or "an before a word beginning with "h."

So my term "anhumanist" is the counterpart to atheist, referring to the strange notion of God not believing in the existence of Man.
 
Back
Top Bottom