kurtster 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.

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.

 dionysius wrote: 
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.

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

 manbirdexperiment wrote: 
Serf's up, dude ! 

 dionysius 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.

 hippiechick wrote: 

So were mine.  My grandparents grew up in Lithuania.

 hippiechick wrote: 

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. 

 hippiechick 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

 dionysius 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.

 hippiechick 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.

 dionysius wrote: 
It's all about "fear of the other"

 kurtster 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.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

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.

 kurtster wrote: 
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...

 Proclivities 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.

 kurtster 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.

 kurtster wrote: 
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.

 jadewahoo 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.

 kurtster wrote: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?

 hippiechick wrote: 
Well, how about we just be Americans ?  Hyphens, just by their very nature are divisive.  They are not joiners.  If I called myself an European - American, I would be considered a racist.  How come its OK for a certain group and not others ?  You approve of that ?

OBTW: on a totally unrelated item, is getting high strictly a lefty thingy or is it OK for righties to indulge as well ?  Or is it even conceivable that a righty would get high ?