[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Chicago 25 Or 6 To 4 - Steely_D - May 20, 2022 - 2:42pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 2:36pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - May 20, 2022 - 1:47pm
 
songs for drella - TheKing2 - May 20, 2022 - 1:03pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 10:51am
 
Wordle - daily game - islander - May 20, 2022 - 7:39am
 
Reccomended System or Powered Speakers - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 20, 2022 - 7:04am
 
What is the meaning of this? - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:53am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Counting with Pictures - darkblue - May 20, 2022 - 6:21am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 6:05am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - May 20, 2022 - 5:41am
 
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 5:16am
 
The Obituary Page - thisbody - May 19, 2022 - 10:01pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - May 19, 2022 - 8:10pm
 
Today, I learned... - Bill_J - May 19, 2022 - 6:56pm
 
songs that ROCK! - Red_Dragon - May 19, 2022 - 5:10pm
 
Online Radio Platforms - Steely_D - May 19, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Brag about your stereo - miamizsun - May 19, 2022 - 3:16pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - islander - May 19, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
COVID-19 - Red_Dragon - May 19, 2022 - 1:50pm
 
Testing your Metal? - oldviolin - May 19, 2022 - 12:11pm
 
Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 19, 2022 - 10:37am
 
Help Finding A Song - nightdrive - May 19, 2022 - 10:19am
 
Lyrics - oldviolin - May 19, 2022 - 8:17am
 
What Did You Do Today? - miamizsun - May 19, 2022 - 4:08am
 
New Song Submissions system - danielh - May 19, 2022 - 2:09am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Coaxial - May 18, 2022 - 6:42pm
 
NASA & other news from space - GeneP59 - May 18, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - May 18, 2022 - 4:12pm
 
Guided Meditation by Bill - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:45pm
 
January 20th, 2005 ~ Boycott And Meditation Day - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:34pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - May 18, 2022 - 1:55pm
 
Economix - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Japan - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Race in America - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 7:36am
 
North Korea - Red_Dragon - May 17, 2022 - 9:07pm
 
Live Music - thisbody - May 17, 2022 - 1:50pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 17, 2022 - 11:24am
 
"2000 Mules" movie purports to prove 2020 election was st... - rgio - May 17, 2022 - 7:02am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 16, 2022 - 8:44pm
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:31pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:18pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:42pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:24pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 3:24pm
 
New Music - miamizsun - May 16, 2022 - 12:37pm
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 10:17am
 
What the hell OV? - miamizsun - May 16, 2022 - 9:40am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 9:33am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 8:35am
 
Watching My Mind Slip Away... - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:05am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - Alchemist - May 15, 2022 - 10:12pm
 
TuneIn difficulties - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2022 - 7:02pm
 
Terrorist Watch! - Steely_D - May 15, 2022 - 5:17pm
 
Climate Change - Red_Dragon - May 15, 2022 - 1:31pm
 
Spain - Red_Dragon - May 15, 2022 - 11:04am
 
Get Your Godcast! - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 4:52pm
 
TV shows you watch - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Republican Party - rgio - May 14, 2022 - 3:15pm
 
The Abortion Wars - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 2:20pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 2:08pm
 
Finland - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 11:28am
 
CRAZY Flooding Video! - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 7:35am
 
Bluesound MQA stream not working for me - Juancastilo - May 14, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Australia has Disappeared - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 6:07am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - May 13, 2022 - 5:25pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - GeneP59 - May 13, 2022 - 7:15am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - May 13, 2022 - 6:21am
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - May 12, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
George Carlin - GeneP59 - May 12, 2022 - 7:35am
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - GeneP59 - May 12, 2022 - 7:25am
 
Flower Pictures - Proclivities - May 12, 2022 - 6:29am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 12, 2022 - 5:47am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » RightWingNutZ Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 128, 129, 130 ... 133, 134, 135  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 9:11pm

kurtster wrote:
I would like to think that an American is someone who recognizes and respects the roots of the nation's birth and finds that the Constitution is the accepted law of the land (and puts country ahead of ethnicity).  That it was born of an Anglo Protestant point of view is a fact and the way things are.  To ignore that and / or make it a detraction is a disservice to this nation and the Constitution.   While the Founding Fathers and documents recognize a Creator, it does not recognize any particular church or devine right to rule.  Whether or not you believe in a creator is secondary and neither's rights are restricted.  
I would also proffer that those who come to America with the intent to change rather than join what has been established is undesireable. 

——————————————————————————-

Jadewahoo wrote:
Geez, you Americans sure do not know your history:

Origins or Our Constitution
Much of the Constitution came from the Five Nations Constitution, a document created by a group of eastern American Indian tribes called the Iroquois. The original five nations included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. Later, when the Tuscaroras Nation joined the Iroquois, they called it the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The estimated date of the creation of the document is August 31, 1142 and was approved in what is now a football field in Victor, New York.<1
———————————
Our Founding Fathers:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
                            John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

."Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
                      Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
                           James Madison - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
                       George Washington in a letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church,  nor by any Church that I know of.  My own mind is my own Church.  Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
                         Thomas Paine

Shall I go on?
———————————
Well, I do agree with you on this point...

The indigenous American Indian population had already been reduced, in a process which is ongoing to this day, from perhaps 12.5 million in the year 1500 to fewer than 250,000 by the beginning of the 20th century. This was accomplished, according to official sources, "largely through the cruelty of Euro American settlers," and an informal but clear governmental policy which had made it an articulated goal to "exterminate these red vermin" or at least whole segments of them.

.

Or, as my Gramma Naomi (the Matriarch of our Clan) said "Them? Don't listen to them. They are all Boat People (that is: illegal immigrants, for you who do not remember Boat People anxiety)."

................................................

So, you see, your whole premise, and that of the other 'Anti-Them' flag-wavers, is based in illusion, falsehood and ignorance. Why, you wonder, do some around you so disparage your beliefs and paranoid rantings? Well, it is time to take an honest look at the investment you carry in your agenda. Then... get off it, or be forever doomed to rant and rave like a crazy man in the park.

—————————————————————————————————

My response:

I still maintain that regardless of its roots, the final draft of the Constitution had a point of view which was is for lack of any other way to express it, is of an Anglo Protestant reference.  It does not mention any particular religion and in fact is devoid of any particular reference other than God and Creator, who ever "it" or "they" might be.

The Constitution is the result and does not infact authorize any injustices and the genocide that the leaders of this country perpetrated on the indigenous American Indian population.  What happened was a perversion of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.  There is no justification for what happened, IMO.  Everyone lost lives and property in this war of attrition.  I cannot apologize for what I was not responsible for.  As I can accurately say that no one in my family ever owned slaves, why should I have to bear that responsibility associated with being a white man ?  This is a circular argument at best, and I know that I am doomed to lose just because I am a Caucasian American.  I am guilty because I am.  Can I say with assuredness that my family never committed attrocities towards indigenous American Indians, no, but to the best of my knowledge, no.  But here we are. 

When it is accepted that EVERYONE here came from somewhere else, including the indigenous American Indian population that crossed the land bridge from Asia, then we are finally going to be able to resolve some of our problems.  There are no natives to this continent. To use the I was here first argument is hollow for anyone on this continent trying to make any point.  That discussion always ends in war.  Other than expressing points of view on things I observe, I can only speak for myself, in the end.  I cannot speak for my government, my ancestors or progeny, only myself.  You lay out a solid argument for the points you offer, of that I cannot disagree.

In my arguments, I don't believe that I use the term "WE" very much, if at all.  I only offer my take on what I see.  My views are not set in stone and I am not in lock step with any particular party or point of view that I know of.  I offer my take on things for the purpose of discussion, learning and in some cases, to challenge rediculous assertions.  And yes I will take some pot shots, but never intentionally go personal.  (EXO not included)  I learn more each day, especially when my views are challenged and I have to come up with a serious defense of them.  They change and evolve as I live.  In the end, I must use the Constitution as a reference for living in this country.  My conscience tells me other things, but still I use the Constitution as a reference point to interact with all others in this country.  What else can I use ?

So is this the place for a serious discussion of anything ?  Probably not.  Its an Internet Radio station website after all, more suited for discussions of trivia and American Idol and the like.  But WTF, I enjoy a good argument, even if I am on the losing side.  Because it made me think.  I still get something out of it that I can use in real life and hopefully in the next one.

{#Cheers}

Hell I don't even know if I made any sense after re reading this as I am pretty flippin tired, but WTF, tomorrow is a new day.  To me that is the most important part of life now.



jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 7:42pm

 kurtster wrote:

OK, fair question.

America, unlike most countries, as we know, is a nation of immigrants, not a homogenous ethnic group that has lived in one place indefinitely and successfully defended their turf and evolved into a homogenous nation, such as Germany and Japan for example.

There are two kinds of "legal" Americans for openers.  Those born here and are citizens by birth and those who come here to embrace and join what has been established.  After that however it gets blurry.

I would like to think that an American is someone who recognizes and respects the roots of the nation's birth and finds that the Constitution is the accepted law of the land (and puts country ahead of ethnicity).  That it was born of an Anglo Protestant point of view is a fact and the way things are.  To ignore that and / or make it a detraction is a disservice to this nation and the Constitution.   While the Founding Fathers and documents recognize a Creator, it does not recognize any particular church or devine right to rule.  Whether or not you believe in a creator is secondary and neither's rights are restricted.  

That having been said, it is also the beginning point and from where this nation has evolved into what it is today.  The Constitution did not establish or grant certain political parties any rights, only rules in which groups or factions could operate.  Being an American is also a great responsibility.  IMO it should mean that you are willing to fight and die to protect this country and its Constitution from those who wish to destroy it so that it may continue to exist.  As this country was born out of revolution, many of its detractors use that as justification for its demise.  I find that notion unjustifiable as the revolution provided a means for a country with the best set of rules (so far) to be born.  Prior to that, the rules were that of a foreign monarchy subject to whim and fancy.  The Revolution provided stability, not Anarchy.  The Constitution does provide for change and provides a set of rules for establishing that change.  To do it outside of the terms established in the Constitution, would be in my view, un American and therefore Anti - American.  The only exception to that would be if we were taken over by someone who does not recognize the Constitution as valid.(I am not going down that road for this discussion at this point in time, so don't take me there, yet)  

I would also proffer that those who come to America with the intent to change rather than join what has been established is undesireable.  To come here under any other circumstances than to join and validate what has been established should not be allowed.  This country should change from within, for and by reasons of its legal citizens through the means provided.  This country is the only nation on earth (that I am aware of) that has never been subject to authoritarian rule as an established nation.  There is a reason for that and I find it worth defending.  I also find that as grounds for implementing change slowly and carefully, so as not to fall into the trap of other's failures. 

This may not be an all encompassing answer to such a broad question, but it is my serious and respectful attempt to answer your question.  So in that spirit and also that I was willing to go out on a limb and go first, please provide your answer to your own question before we continue any further discussion on this topic.  Having your answer before we move on will provide a level field for continuing this discussion.

Edit: I see that this thread has moved on while I answered your question and you have partially provided an answer, unless that is your answer to your own question.

Geez, you Americans sure do not know your history:
Origins or Our Constitution
Much of the Constitution came from the Five Nations Constitution, a document created by a group of eastern American Indian tribes called the Iroquois. The original five nations included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. Later, when the Tuscaroras Nation joined the Iroquois, they called it the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The estimated date of the creation of the document is August 31, 1142 and was approved in what is now a football field in Victor, New York.<1

—————————————————————-
Our Founding Fathers:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved— the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
                            John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson


."Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
                     
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
                           James Madison - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785


"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
                       George Washington in a letter to Edward Newenham, 1792


"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church,  nor by any Church that I know of.  My own mind is my own Church.  Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
                         Thomas Paine

Shall I go on?
—————————————————————-
Well, I do agree with you on this point...

The indigenous American Indian population had already been reduced, in a process which is ongoing to this day, from perhaps 12.5 million in the year 1500 to fewer than 250,000 by the beginning of the 20th century. This was accomplished, according to official sources, "largely through the cruelty of Euro American settlers," and an informal but clear governmental policy which had made it an articulated goal to "exterminate these red vermin" or at least whole segments of them.

Bounties had been placed on the scalps of Indians ­ any Indians ­ in places as diverse as Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, the Dakotas, Oregon, and California and had been maintained until resident Indian populations were decimated or disappeared altogether. Entire peoples such as the Cherokee had been reduced to half their size through a policy of forced removal from their homelands east of the Mississippi River to what were then considered less preferable areas in the West.

Others, such as the Navajo, suffered the same fate while under military guard for years on end. The United States Army had also perpetrated a long series of wholesale massacres of Indians at places like Horseshoe Bend, Bear River, Sand Creek, the Washita River, the Marias River, Camp Robinson and Wounded Knee.

Through it all, hundreds of popular novels - each competing with the next to make Indians appear more grotesque, menacing, and inhuman - were sold in the tens of millions of copies in the U.S. Plainly, the Euro American public was being conditioned to see Indians in such a way so as to allow their eradication to continue. And continue it did until the Manifest Destiny of the U.S ­ a direct precursor to what Hitler would subsequently call Lebensraumpolitik (the politics of living space) was consummated.

By 1900, the national project of "clearing" Native Americans from their land and replacing them with "superior" Anglo American settlers was complete; the indigenous population had been reduced by as much as 98 percent while approximately 97.5 percent of their original territory had ''passed'' to the invaders. The survivors had been concentrated, out of sight and mind of the public, on scattered "reservations," all of them under the self-assigned "plenary" (full) power of the federal government. There was, of course, no Nuremberg-style tribunal passing judgment on those who had fostered such circumstances in North America. No U.S. official or private citizen was ever imprisoned ­ never mind hanged ­ for implementing or propagandizing what had been done. Nor had the process of genocide afflicting Indians been completed. Instead, it merely changed form.

Between the 1880s and the 1980s, nearly half of all Native American children were coercively transferred from their own families, communities, and cultures to those of the conquering society. This was done through compulsory attendance at remote boarding schools, often hundreds of miles from their homes, where native children were kept for years on end while being systematically '"deculturated" (indoctrinated to think and act in the manner of Euro Americans rather than as Indians). It was also accomplished through a pervasive foster home and adoption program ­ including - blind adoptions, where children would be permanently denied information as to who they were/are and where they'd come from - placing native youths in non-Indian homes.

The express purpose of all this was to facilitate a U.S. governmental policy to bring about the "assimilation" (dissolution) of indigenous societies. In other words, Indian cultures as such were to be caused to disappear. Such policy objectives are directly contrary to the United Nations 1948 Convention on Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, an element of international law arising from the Nuremburg proceedings. The forced "transfer of the children" of a targeted "racial, ethnical, or religious group" is explicitly prohibited as a genocidal activity under the Convention's second article.

Article II of the Genocide Convention also expressly prohibits involuntary sterilization as a means of ''preventing births among" a targeted population. Yet, in 1975, it was conceded by the U.S. government that its Indian Health Service (IHS) then a subpart of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was even then conducting a secret program of involuntary sterilization that had affected approximately 40 percent of all Indian women. The program was allegedly discontinued, and the IHS was transferred to the Public Health Service, but no one was punished. In 1990, it came out that the IHS was inoculating, Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had already been banned by the World Health Organization as having demonstrated a correlation with the HIV-Syndrome which is itself correlated to AIDS. As this is written , a "field test" of Hepatitis-A vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian reservations in the northern plains region.

from Crimes Against Humanity ©
by Ward Churchill

 

Or, as my Gramma Naomi (the Matriarch of our Clan) said "Them? Don't listen to them. They are all Boat People (that is: illegal immigrants, for you who do not remember Boat People anxiety)."

................................................

So, you see, your whole premise, and that of the other 'Anti-Them' flag-wavers, is based in illusion, falsehood and ignorance. Why, you wonder, do some around you so disparage those of you who hold such beliefs? Well, it is time to take an honest look at the investment you carry in your agenda. Then... get off it, or be forever doomed to rant and rave like a crazy man in the park.






kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 7:05pm

 dionysius wrote:


It's an interesting question, I think. What does "American" mean? To me, it is obviously not an ethnicity, nor a language. An American is one who loves and tries to live by the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Jefferson's and Madison's words may be translated into Spanish or Vietnamese and lose nothing of their cogency. Get ready for changing demographics—the USA of the future will have blacks, hispanics and Asians outnumbering European Americans before the middle of this century. So what. They can be and are just as American as anyone whose ancestors stepped on Plymouth Rock, or even those whose very distant ancestors came over the Bering Strait during the last ice age. American = WASP is over, dead and done. American = human being with great aspirations has just begun.

 
I see we have some semantic differences in answering your question.  I would have said, "lives by the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the laws established by the Constitution", not "tries".  The Constitution is not a set of ideals, it is a set of laws.

Your answer is full of ethnic considerations and contains a condemnation of WASP's.  My answer is devoid of the same.  Keeping hyphenations of an ethnicity with American is racist definition of the one using it.  African - American for example is racist IMO, while just plain American is not.  And why is having an agreed upon national language wrong ?  Is that racist as well ?  Some standards have to be set and agreed upon somewhere down the line.


BasmntMadman

BasmntMadman Avatar

Location: Off-White Gardens


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 6:37pm

dionysius wrote:

How is insisting that everyone stop hyphenating, speak "proper" English, and generally assimilate to a white Anglo Protestant point of view NOT racist, again?

So what consitutes an "American" anyway? Someone whose ancestors came from Europe? Think carefully before you answer.


Someone who thinks that football is played with a ball that's pointy on both ends.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 6:28pm

 manbirdexperiment wrote:

I don't give a shit about anything I just live here - i could be a clone on the moon for all i care as long as I have a place to live some food and a couple hawks

 
Serf's up, dude !  {#Wink}

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 6:02pm

 dionysius wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

 As long as people in this country insist on Hyphenating and insist on maintaining their ethic identity rather than becoming an American, this debate will continue.  


How is insisting that everyone stop hyphenating, speak "proper" English, and generally assimilate to a white Anglo Protestant point of view NOT racist, again?

So what consitutes an "American" anyway? Someone whose ancestors came from Europe? Think carefully before you answer.

 
OK, fair question.

America, unlike most countries, as we know, is a nation of immigrants, not a homogenous ethnic group that has lived in one place indefinitely and successfully defended their turf and evolved into a homogenous nation, such as Germany and Japan for example.

There are two kinds of "legal" Americans for openers.  Those born here and are citizens by birth and those who come here to embrace and join what has been established.  After that however it gets blurry.

I would like to think that an American is someone who recognizes and respects the roots of the nation's birth and finds that the Constitution is the accepted law of the land (and puts country ahead of ethnicity).  That it was born of an Anglo Protestant point of view is a fact and the way things are.  To ignore that and / or make it a detraction is a disservice to this nation and the Constitution.   While the Founding Fathers and documents recognize a Creator, it does not recognize any particular church or devine right to rule.  Whether or not you believe in a creator is secondary and neither's rights are restricted.  

That having been said, it is also the beginning point and from where this nation has evolved into what it is today.  The Constitution did not establish or grant certain political parties any rights, only rules in which groups or factions could operate.  Being an American is also a great responsibility.  IMO it should mean that you are willing to fight and die to protect this country and its Constitution from those who wish to destroy it so that it may continue to exist.  As this country was born out of revolution, many of its detractors use that as justification for its demise.  I find that notion unjustifiable as the revolution provided a means for a country with the best set of rules (so far) to be born.  Prior to that, the rules were that of a foreign monarchy subject to whim and fancy.  The Revolution provided stability, not Anarchy.  The Constitution does provide for change and provides a set of rules for establishing that change.  To do it outside of the terms established in the Constitution, would be in my view, un American and therefore Anti - American.  The only exception to that would be if we were taken over by someone who does not recognize the Constitution as valid.(I am not going down that road for this discussion at this point in time, so don't take me there, yet)  

I would also proffer that those who come to America with the intent to change rather than join what has been established is undesireable.  To come here under any other circumstances than to join and validate what has been established should not be allowed.  This country should change from within, for and by reasons of its legal citizens through the means provided.  This country is the only nation on earth (that I am aware of) that has never been subject to authoritarian rule as an established nation.  There is a reason for that and I find it worth defending.  I also find that as grounds for implementing change slowly and carefully, so as not to fall into the trap of other's failures. 

This may not be an all encompassing answer to such a broad question, but it is my serious and respectful attempt to answer your question.  So in that spirit and also that I was willing to go out on a limb and go first, please provide your answer to your own question before we continue any further discussion on this topic.  Having your answer before we move on will provide a level field for continuing this discussion.

Edit: I see that this thread has moved on while I answered your question and you have partially provided an answer, unless that is your answer to your own question.


maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:43pm

 hippiechick wrote:

When my family came over, they were called "greenhorns." Italians were called WOPs, Irish were called Micks. They were poor, spoke different languages, and had to take the lowest, dirtiest jobs in order to give their family the American dream. I would call them Americans. My granparents grew up in Russia/Poland, but they would never identify themselves with either one of those ethnicities, because of the poor relations they had with each other.

But we are all the same inside, we all have the same aspirations and dreams for our our children. Maybe we need to move past the tribal references, since we are certainly a global nation.
 

So were mine.  My grandparents grew up in Lithuania.
dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:43pm

 hippiechick wrote:

When my family came over, they were called "greenhorns." Italians were called WOPs, Irish were called Micks. They were poor, spoke different languages, and had to take the lowest, dirtiest jobs in order to give their family the American dream. I would call them Americans. My granparents grew up in Russia/Poland, but they would never identify themselves with either one of those ethnicities, because of the poor relations they had with each other.

But we are all the same inside, we all have the same aspirations and dreams for our our children. Maybe we need to move past the tribal references, since we are certainly a global nation.
 

Agreed. We cannot tie national identity or citizenship to ethnicity, or we are no better than Nazis, then. The Romantic notion of a "nation" consisting One Blood, One Soil is poisonous nonsense, and has caused a lot of grief in history. Pretty recent history, too, if we look at Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, for just two examples. 


Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: Owl Creek Bridge
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:41pm

 hippiechick wrote:

When my family came over, they were called "greenhorns." Italians were called WOPs, Irish were called Micks. They were poor, spoke different languages, and had to take the lowest, dirtiest jobs in order to give their family the American dream. I would call them Americans. My granparents grew up in Russia/Poland, but they would never identify themselves with either one of those ethnicities, because of the poor relations they had with each other.

But we are all the same inside, we all have the same aspirations and dreams for our our children. Maybe we need to move past the tribal references, since we are certainly a global nation.
 
I don't give a shit about anything I just live here - i could be a clone on the moon for all i care as long as I have a place to live some food and a couple hawks


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:39pm

 dionysius wrote:


It's an interesting question, I think. What does "American" mean? To me, it is obviously not an ethnicity, nor a language. An American is one who loves and tries to live by the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Jefferson's and Madison's words may be translated into Spanish or Vietnamese and lose nothing of their cogency. Get ready for changing demographics—the USA of the future will have blacks, hispanics and Asians outnumbering European Americans before the middle of this century. So what. They can be and are just as American as anyone whose ancestors stepped on Plymouth Rock, or even those whose very distant ancestors came over the Bering Strait during the last ice age. American = WASP is over, dead and done. American = human being with great aspirations has just begun.

 
When my family came over, they were called "greenhorns." Italians were called WOPs, Irish were called Micks. They were poor, spoke different languages, and had to take the lowest, dirtiest jobs in order to give their family the American dream. I would call them Americans. My granparents grew up in Russia/Poland, but they would never identify themselves with either one of those ethnicities, because of the poor relations they had with each other.

But we are all the same inside, we all have the same aspirations and dreams for our our children. Maybe we need to move past the tribal references, since we are certainly a global nation.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:23pm

 hippiechick wrote:

It's all about "fear of the other"
 

It's an interesting question, I think. What does "American" mean? To me, it is obviously not an ethnicity, nor a language. An American is one who loves and tries to live by the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Jefferson's and Madison's words may be translated into Spanish or Vietnamese and lose nothing of their cogency. Get ready for changing demographics—the USA of the future will have blacks, hispanics and Asians outnumbering European Americans before the middle of this century. So what. They can be and are just as American as anyone whose ancestors stepped on Plymouth Rock, or even those whose very distant ancestors came over the Bering Strait during the last ice age. American = WASP is over, dead and done. American = human being with great aspirations has just begun.


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:09pm

 dionysius wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

 As long as people in this country insist on Hyphenating and insist on maintaining their ethic identity rather than becoming an American, this debate will continue.  


How is insisting that everyone stop hyphenating, speak "proper" English, and generally assimilate to a white Anglo Protestant point of view NOT racist, again?

So what consitutes an "American" anyway? Someone whose ancestors came from Europe? Think carefully before you answer.

 
It's all about "fear of the other"

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 5:02pm

 kurtster wrote:

 As long as people in this country insist on Hyphenating and insist on maintaining their ethic identity rather than becoming an American, this debate will continue.  


How is insisting that everyone stop hyphenating, speak "proper" English, and generally assimilate to a white Anglo Protestant point of view NOT racist, again?

So what consitutes an "American" anyway? Someone whose ancestors came from Europe? Think carefully before you answer.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 4:51pm

 jadewahoo wrote:

It is not the 'defending of our borders' that makes your statement racist (I never called YOU a racist, BTW), it is that you would classify someone (in this case, Debi Segura Dobbs) as 'Mexican' simply because they are of Mexican descent. That is akin to calling President Obama a Muslim because some of the family he descended from is Muslim. It is your statement that is racist. Now, you can go on and on about your political beliefs about the need for secured borders yada-yada... but that is not addressing the racism expressed in your statement. When you are willing to look more deeply into that looking glass, and contend with the incipient prejudice to be found therein, then I would be willing to listen to your further comments about border policy. But I will be damned if I will just sit back and let your obsfucations derail from the point on which I am calling you out. Until then, well, your commentaries carry the albatross of your prejudice.

Love ya, man. That's why.
 

I make the distinction between ethnicity and religious backgrounds.  While being Mexican (for example) is an ethnic reference, Muslim, to me at least, is not.  It is a reference towards creed.  These distinctions get blurred and muddied all the time and should not.  In my view, one can be of Mexican descent, but not of Muslim descent.  To the point, is it a slur to call someone a Mexican, when they are of Mexican descent and not a Mexican national ?  Obviously (I would like to think) it would depend on the context.  As long as people in this country insist on Hyphenating and insist on maintaining their ethnic identity rather than becoming an American, this debate will continue.  

Ordinarily, I would never have refered to Debi Segura Dobbs as Mexican, save for this discussion and yes it was an attempt to bait and also see who was paying attention.  I went where I never should have or would have gone ordinarily, to make a point.


oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 4:10pm

 kurtster wrote:


As one who finds fault and comedy in both sides and admits it, I would call it mob mentality.  It is what keeps us apart and prevents us from solving problems.  I guess when you live in a society that has one party ruling the entire government, it allows those in power to think that they are infallible and to conveniently forget the skeletons in their own closet.

 
I didn't forget mine...they're in there right now, plotting their takeover. I'm gonna suprise 'em with a nut bomb and make video of their teeth clacking and post it on youtube...or here in RP...you never know...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 3:55pm

 Proclivities wrote:

I think the practice of denying that one's own side has done wrong, while condemning groups with any differing opinions or actvities, is pretty common among all persuasions, political or otherwise.  It's group mentality.


 

As one who finds fault and comedy in both sides and admits it, I would call it mob mentality.  It is what keeps us apart and prevents us from solving problems.  I guess when you live in a society that has one party ruling the entire government, it allows those in power to think that they are infallible and to conveniently forget the skeletons in their own closet.
jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 3:49pm

 kurtster wrote:


Once again you got me. 

The reason is that in my opinion, (a broad generalization based upon observation) is that most of the lefties only use a broad brush when they paint righties while they deny that their side has done anything wrong, ever.  Such as in the case earlier when I had to issue a(an) (unchallenged) correction to the point where Repubs never voted to pass any social legislation, ever.  I thought it fair to remind that person of the dear Senator Byrd (D -WV), a former Grand Wizard in the KKK to make my correction. 

Yes. I know opinions are like A-holes, just like the word assume.

And if securing our borders and defending our Constitution is sufficient to paint me a racist, then so be it.

Edit: I love this thread.  With its title, it is totally unjackable.  After all, there are no leftwingnutz as we all know.{#Wink}

 
It is not the 'defending of our borders' that makes your statement racist (I never called YOU a racist, BTW), it is that you would classify someone (in this case, Debi Segura Dobbs) as 'Mexican' simply because they are of Mexican descent. That is akin to calling President Obama a Muslim because some of the family he descended from is Muslim. It is your statement that is racist. Now, you can go on and on about your political beliefs about the need for secured borders yada-yada... but that is not addressing the racism expressed in your statement. When you are willing to look more deeply into that looking glass, and contend with the incipient prejudice to be found therein, then I would be willing to listen to your further comments about border policy. But I will be damned if I will just sit back and let your obsfucations derail from the point on which I am calling you out. Until then, well, your commentaries carry the albatross of your prejudice.

Love ya, man. That's why.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 3:41pm

 kurtster wrote:


Once again you got me. 

The reason is that in my opinion, (a broad generalization based upon observation) is that most of the lefties only use a broad brush when they paint righties while they deny that their side has done anything wrong, ever.  Such as in the case earlier when I had to issue a(an) (unchallenged) correction to the point where Repubs never voted to pass any social legislation, ever.  I thought it fair to remind that person of the dear Senator Byrd (D -WV), a former Grand Wizard in the KKK to make my correction. 

Yes. I know opinions are like A-holes, just like the word assume.

And if securing our borders and defending our Constitution is sufficient to paint me a racist, then so be it.

Edit: I love this thread.  With its title, it is totally unjackable.  After all, there are no leftwingnutz as we all know.{#Wink}

 
I think the practice of denying that one's own side has done wrong, while condemning groups with any differing opinions or dubious actions, is pretty common among all persuasions, political or otherwise.  It's group mentality.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 2:55pm

 jadewahoo wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

You got me.  I knew that she was an American of Mexican decent when I wrote that.  I was waiting for a left wing deep thinker to call me on it. 

Just thinking out loud now.  Are there any American - Canadians, or African - Canadians, or American - Mexicans or  American - French, or African - Germans, or ...

Are we American - Fools or what ?  I guess its safe to be a wingnut and say that if you are a hyphenated American, then you just ain't an American.  Who came up with this hyphenated thing anyway ?  An American - Racist ?
Kurt, you are so far to the Left of me, it is laughable. One need not be a Left nor a Righty to recognize racist statement. So... if you meant o say that she is an American of Mexican descent, why not just say that, instead of an inept attempt to bait your fellow RPeeps?

 

Once again you got me. 

The reason is that in my opinion, (a broad generalization based upon observation) is that most of the lefties only use a broad brush when they paint righties while they deny that their side has done anything wrong, ever.  Such as in the case earlier when I had to issue a(an) (unchallenged) correction to the point where Repubs never voted to pass any social legislation, ever.  I thought it fair to remind that person of the dear Senator Byrd (D -WV), a former Grand Wizard in the KKK to make my correction. 

Yes. I know opinions are like A-holes, just like the word assume.

And if securing our borders and defending our Constitution is sufficient to paint me a racist, then so be it.

Edit: I love this thread.  With its title, it is totally unjackable.  After all, there are no leftwingnutz as we all know.{#Wink}


jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2009 - 2:44pm

 kurtster wrote:

You got me.  I knew that she was an American of Mexican decent when I wrote that.  I was waiting for a left wing deep thinker to call me on it. 

Just thinking out loud now.  Are there any American - Canadians, or African - Canadians, or American - Mexicans or  American - French, or African - Germans, or ...

Are we American - Fools or what ?  I guess its safe to be a wingnut and say that if you are a hyphenated American, then you just ain't an American.  Who came up with this hyphenated thing anyway ?  An American - Racist ?
Kurt, you are so far to the Left of me, it is laughable. One need not be a Lefty nor a Righty to recognize a racist statement. So... if you meant o say that she is an American of Mexican descent, why not just say that, instead of an inept attempt to bait your fellow RPeeps?


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 128, 129, 130 ... 133, 134, 135  Next