# Why aren't whites called European Americans?



## Kane (Aug 10, 2005)

It seems strange to me. Though it is not necessarily offensive to use the term "black" when describing an African American, if you look at any major poll or article, when talking about black people they use "African America", and for white people they use "white".

 However doesn't that seem like a double standard? They are being politically correct for blacks, calling them African American, so then why can't they be politically correct to whites and call them European Americans?

  It seems strange to me also how everyone else is categorized differently from whites;

  People of East Asian Decent: Asian American
  Natives Decedents: Native Americans
  People of African Decent: African American
  People of Latin American Origin: Latin Americans
  People of European Decent: Whites

  Notice that the term "white" is in a different format as if they are a different type of being. They don't use European American.

 Why do the people who want everything to be politically correct want it to look like white people vs other races, as if whites are like a separate being? Why can't the system be 100% politically correct and call whites European Americans?

 Of course many might say it makes no difference since it may not be "offending" anyone, but I think there is more than meets the eye here. 

  If we want full equality of the races we must no make distinctions, even in minor things like this. What do you think?


----------



## Marginal (Aug 10, 2005)

Short answer...

Why don't we have children's day?
Because every day is children's day. 

Lotsa people do seem to like the anglo term tho.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 10, 2005)

How many generations does your family have to be in a country before you stop being identified by where they came from and are just identified by who you are?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 10, 2005)

Does African American refer to white citizens of South Africa?

It's all just a way of becoming a special group to add yourself if you are looking for special grants and privileges, affirmative action, pity, etc.

If these people believed in the melting pot, there wouldn't be a need for the division and descrimination and rascism, beacause that's what it is y'all.


----------



## Kane (Aug 10, 2005)

It just seems strange to me that whites are always categorized in a differently than other races, almost as if they are a seperate being. I wouldn't mind if European Americans were called white, as long as African Americans are called black, or whatever. The point is that they should all have similar names, not different type.

 Native Americans are the most American of all the races some might say, and yet how come they are regarded as a non-white race.

 Basicly it seems that there are two groups, whites and non-whites. This is not so, but many times people who claim to be politcally correct say hint at this.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 10, 2005)

Memory of a conversation I had with a friend of color:

Me: Tell me something do you insist on being called African American? 
Him: Of course that's where my family is from. 
Me: I see, but you were born here right?
Him: Yeah...
Me: Your mom and dad born here?
Him: Yes
Me: Your grandparents? Born here?
Him: Yeah...
Me: Great Grandparents?
Him: Yes
Me: Great-great grandparents? Or did they come over on the boat? 
Him: (thoughtful) probably that... I do know they were slaves but...
Me: So it seems to me that with you being a fourth generation born in American that just makes you plain American doesn't it? 
Him: Seems that way what about you? 
Me: Well, sticking with just my Father (as my mother's family was 4 generation born American Scandinavian) who's family can be traced directly to Dublin Ireland... I was born here, my father, my grandfather, my great grand father and great-great grand father... and if I'm not mistaken we have records of my father's family fighting in pre-revolutionary war skirmishes with the Brits and French when they were trying to move in. 

I dunno what is the right number of generations born in this country can be called simply *AMERICAN* but as far as I'm concerned to this date... anyone who's family was born in this country and sired children before/during/after the civil war is as American as they can get. No matter *WHAT* skin color they are. 
I understand and appreciate ancestrial pride and all that. I'm proud of having an Irish lineage because they helped build railroads and a lot of things in this country. Same with my dutch ancestors on my mothers side and their sea-loving males that were part of the commerce trade on the atlantic sea-board. Yet do I call myself an Irish American? A Dutch/Irish American? NO! I'm an American and I'll die an American! :supcool: 
True blacks having been brought over (most of them anyway) against their will and forced to work and build the south... were liberated and allowed to grow as a PEOPLE (not a race) in this country. Admittedly they had opposition until the Civil Rights Act in the 60's and really didn't come into full intergration until the 70's because of white bigotry ... there are more black owned businesses, leaders and black millionaires in the past two decades than any other in the last 100 years! So they've been growing and prospering as a people ... as AMERICANS. Same with hispanics and other races, though on a smaller but rapidly growing scale. 
IMO those immigrants that are coming into this country now should, after taking the oath of citizenship can retain the right to call themselves Native-country/American but their children and grandchildren to come should be known as Americans. 
Funny, I wonder if those who moved and settled in present day euro/asian countries are calling themselves as American Germans/Britians or American Japanese/Indonesians or whatever. 
The whole thing is silly and is IMO hurtful because it allows a seperation of loyalty and pride in one's NATIVE country. If you're born here then that's what you are. Don't like it... the 9:55 redeye flight to europe or asia is now boarding. :shrug:


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

Well, up here in Canada a lot of people retain there cultural heritage several generations out of there country of origin.

 It's part of who we are, it's in our blood.

 I am Canadian, I am proud to be Canadian.  One of the things I like most about being Canadian is it is a multi-cultural country.  I went to a elementry school that was half Englieh, half Ukranian bilingual.  It didn't divide us any more then having two English classes would.  Most of the kids in it where born in Canada, most of there parents where too.  But tradition and culture are important and you should never forget where you came from, it got you where you are.

 It is quite common for people up here, who have been here for generations to say I'm Russian, or I'm Geman, or I'm Irish, or I'm Ukranian, or I'm Jewish, etc.  

 Why white stayed and black didn't?

 Well, my guess would be when the "White / Black" terms where in common use, "Black" was meant as a derogatory term, "White" was not.  "Blacks" where slaves that got treated like animals, That wouldn't be the part of my history I'd want to identify myself by.

 Where as with white American history, there was that independance thing which largely regected Europe, tossed the Europeans out and declared themselves something non-European, that rejected European culture (All that tea wasted...)  So "European" was liekly not the way they wanted to name themselves.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Everybody wants to be different...some want to be treated different too.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 10, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Where as with white American history, there was that independance thing which largely regected Europe, tossed the Europeans out and declared themselves something non-European, that rejected European culture (All that tea wasted...)  So "European" was liekly not the way they wanted to name themselves.



Well, we really declared independence from England, not Europe, and the French were pretty happy to help with that.

Seems the only place I hear of terms like Italian-American, French-American are cooking shows.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 10, 2005)

Good.

 The last thing we want is everyone wanting to be the same.



> some want to be treated different too.


 Some got treated different when they didn't want too.  Slaves got treated different then white folk.  I'd imagine the Slaves didn't decide to give the white people special priveledges over them...  I'd imagine the Natives didn't decide to donate all there good land to the White folk...


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 10, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Does African American refer to white citizens of South Africa?


 Good question.  I don't know any personally, so ....



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> It's all just a way of becoming a special group to add yourself if you are looking for special grants and privileges, affirmative action, pity, etc.


 Yes, yes, yes. We all want to think we're of a special affiliation. It makes us feel ... well, special.  I think that crosses all lines - those of color (white, African American, Asian American, First Nations), religion (Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist), or political party ("right" wing, liberal, Libertarian).  We all be fancy!! Ooooh. Aaaaah. Geeee. Wooooow.  I think it's really interesting to hear the white American male complain thump his chest about his affiliation and then complain about others with their affiliations.  Not that that's what your doing ....



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> If these people believed in the melting pot, there wouldn't be a need for the division and descrimination and rascism, beacause that's what it is y'all.


 The thing is, whether we want to admit it or not, humans still mostly gravitate towards our like kind.  There's been lots of research showing that thin, young, attractive, white, well-dressed people with the same qualifications as those without one or some of those qualities are more likely to get jobs, loans, cooperation, faster and better service.

 So what we're really talking about is trying to legislate thought.  Tough.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Good.
> 
> The last thing we want is everyone wanting to be the same.
> 
> ...


Some Americans of slave ancestry have "been here" longer than my family has. As most came over "on the boat" in the late 1800's. As Italian immigrants they were exposed to some vile discrimination themselves. My great grandmother said she refused to teach any of her descendants Italian because the accent would "handicap" them. She wanted then to become "Americans" not Italian-Americans. Why should anyone have access to more government programs or social benefits than me based on what happened to people few of us knew or remember?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 10, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> It seems strange to me. Though it is not necessarily offensive to use the term "black" when describing an African American, if you look at any major poll or article, when talking about black people they use "African America", and for white people they use "white".
> 
> However doesn't that seem like a double standard? They are being politically correct for blacks, calling them African American, so then why can't they be politically correct to whites and call them European Americans?
> 
> ...


One difference to consider. Those people from Western Europe that travelled to the Americas in the 15th and 16th century were often travelling by their own free choice, motivated by business opportunities. 

Those who travelled from Western Africa to the Americans in the 16th and 17th century were taken captive and forcibly removed from their homelands, and carried across an ocean and imprisoned as beasts of burden. 

These are two very different scenarios. Do they merit different treatment? 

One may argue and ask that many generations have passed ... surely the sins of the father should not be paid out on the son; for how much time should this suggested 'different treatment' last? 

I think the reasonable answer to this thoughtful question requires looking at the human condition, and how individuals connect with and identify with their community. 

While the descendants of slaves have for many generations now been born in this New World, have they connected with, and identified with the community of travelling merchants from Western Europe? Or, did the Western Europeans, while extending 'freedom' to the African descendents, still keep them apart from the community. 

While Lincoln granted 'freedom' to the service class in America, could the African descendent children honestly be connected with and identified with the European descenent children before Brown v Board of Education? (or later)

So, in this New World, we have communities that are isolated away from the halls of power. They are not part of the 'melting pot'. They are segregated. Won't these human beings strive to find an identity; an identity that is denied them by the former 'slave owners'. (I'm sorry Mrs. Parks, you must sit in the back of the bus). So, they find among themselves an identity; develop names for themselves (some no longer acceptable in mixed company); create secret handshakes; build their own culture unique from the Europeans. What should this unique culture be called? How do the members of this culture describe it to the non-initiated? 

I don't know if it is THE correct answer, but African-American, is certainly one way to simply identify the culture; a people imprisoned and in servitude for 300 years, set free, but kept apart, reaching back to their origin for self-identification. 

* * * *

If the very brief argument above makes any sense, who knows. From this theory, a Caucasion from South Africa would not be part of the 'African American' culture, because his identity would not come from the centuries of oppression and ostracization, even if his geography does match the description. As MisterMike suggests, the South African may take up the mantle of 'African American', if he feels it might gain him some benefit. Although, I don't think that is any different than a college student joining the Greek System at college. 

* * * * * 

And, over time, as the culture becomes less seperated from, and more a part of, the term will eventually become meaningless (or so we hope). Two items on this thought ... 

My caucasion daughter and her friends will use the term 'whigger' to describe each other. It is offensive to me. It is repugnant to me. If you can't figure out what it means, or if you haven't heard this term, you can private message me and I'll explain. 

And don't forget about the big 'Ghetto Festival' in Miami. Where the citizens can come down and have watermelon eating contests and celebrate how 'Ghetto' they are. (Also, this is offensive to me). Look up the news reports.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> It seems strange to me. Though it is not necessarily offensive to use the term "black" when describing an African American, if you look at any major poll or article, when talking about black people they use "African America", and for white people they use "white".
> 
> However doesn't that seem like a double standard? They are being politically correct for blacks, calling them African American, so then why can't they be politically correct to whites and call them European Americans?
> 
> ...


personally i think the appropriate term for all of the above groups is "Americans".

Jeff


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 11, 2005)

Culturally, I'm an American.  Ethnically, I'm a fairly typical Euro-mutt.  I've got french, english, and irish ancestry (as far as I know).  Being adopted, I'm unaware of any finer divisions or of when my ancestors actually migrated here.  My daughter is even crazier, since my wife is vietnamese, so she's a euro-asian-mutt.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 11, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Culturally, I'm an American.  Ethnically, I'm a fairly typical Euro-mutt.  I've got french, english, and irish ancestry (as far as I know).  Being adopted, I'm unaware of any finer divisions or of when my ancestors actually migrated here.  My daughter is even crazier, since my wife is vietnamese, so she's a euro-asian-mutt.


World wide most people are mutts.  From the beginning of time it seems that lust frequntly outweighs racism.

Jeff


----------



## Xequat (Aug 11, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Does African American refer to white citizens of South Africa?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 13, 2005)

Italian American
German American
Irish American
Polish American

It does seem as though many Americans are referred to and refer to themselves by country of origin, even Europeans. I think the issue, however, is that many American's have become so lost in the blend, melted so to speak, that we have lost our ethnic origin. Maybe that's for the best. Then we can just be 'Americans'.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 14, 2005)

The strange part is that the term "African-American" only applies to people who have been in this country for a long time (generations), or are actually FROM Africa.  

I work with alot of INS persons, who for one reason or another are waiting to be deported, and all of the black ones that have spoken to me about this consider it an insult to call them "african-american".  They either want to be called americans or wherever their country of origin actually is.  There are many blacks that I meet that are french, canadian, english, from one of the caribbean islands etc. and do not want to be lumped into the classification of "african american".


----------



## Kane (Aug 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Italian American
> German American
> Irish American
> Polish American
> ...


 So have Africans. In fact most African Americans living today have a lot of white blood in them, they are hardly pure Africans. For example Halle Barry is often looked at as African American when in fact she is half white.

 And besides, isn't African American more of a broad generalization? Africa is not a country, neither is Europe. But those are two contin. that the two races came from. I think they should be viewed in the same way, not African American and White. If they are going to call European American people white, they might as well call African American people black.


----------



## still learning (Aug 15, 2005)

Hello,  It wil take a couple of more centuries before colors/race/religion/cultures/others things are not a major issue among us?

 If the human race is still around?

 The world is getting very populated....can we all get together..........Aloha


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 15, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> So have Africans. In fact most African Americans living today have a lot of white blood in them, they are hardly pure Africans. For example Halle Barry is often looked at as African American when in fact she is half white.
> 
> And besides, isn't African American more of a broad generalization? Africa is not a country, neither is Europe. But those are two contin. that the two races came from. I think they should be viewed in the same way, not African American and White. If they are going to call European American people white, they might as well call African American people black.


 This isn't a racial issue, it's about how we identify ourselves and the culture we embrace. Many "European Americans" feel no desire to identify themselves based on their "nation of origin", as that nation they feel, is America. 

Black Americans have a more troubled relationship with being Americans, much of it based on historic injustices, both real and perceived. That, however, has lead to a bit of a disfunctional relationship with "being" Americans. Thus the desire to seperate themselves somewhat from the melting pot of American culture. 

The real question is, however, how ultimately damaging is this self-enforced seperation to both America and the Black community. Many Black leaders in recent years have started to notice the maladaptive effect of this self-imposed seperation, and have been increasingly outspoken about changing it.

In order to continue to thrive as a nation, we must include every member of our society in to the melting pot of America and embrace them as what they are, Americans.  Conversely, the Black community must be willing to set aside anger over past abuses, in order that we may move on as a nation.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 15, 2005)

My question to MisterMike is why white South Africans aren't called "European Africans."   Maybe they are, and we simply haven't heard of it.

The Old World continent or nation listing --as we use these terms in the United States-- specifically denotes the standard racial composition of that originating continent or nation.  Ergo, an African American is a black United States citizen, a "Mexican American" is hispanic and has citizenship.

We rarely apply "Brazilian American" or any other national etiology to South American transplants to this country, referring to them as "hispanic,"  and never "South American American."  I have never heard the term "Canadian American" used, and doubt it would ever be.

Many Poles, Germans, Irish and Italians list their heritage by calling themselves "(Fill in the blank) Americans," often only around the time of some Old World holiday, such as St. Patrick's day for the Irish.  When pressed, they call themselves American...and with pride...but still want to own their roots to their country of origin.

Most of us don't begrudge them this.

Why, then, do we expect blacks to disown their heritage and remove the "African" from in front of "American?"  In my lifetime they were treated as second class citizens unworthy of equal status.  In my parents lifetime they were forbidden marriage to non-whites, denied residency in certain neighborhoods and cities, denied educational opportunities.

Those very Jim Crow laws and their history of bondage gave these people a unique experience and a unique identity that no others can claim.  The Irish, Italian, German or Polish experiences in this country...while noteworthy...pales in comparison to that of the blacks.  The blacks and the blacks alone appear at the centerpiece of this country's greatest Constitutional crisis, whose aftershocks are still felt today.  

They stand apart in appearance and history.  If they want to claim their roots with a simple defining prefix, who are we to criticize them for it?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## KenpoTess (Aug 15, 2005)

I think of myself as an American Thai dyed Scot (being Thai & Scottish but all American 





			
				qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Culturally, I'm an American.  Ethnically, I'm a fairly typical Euro-mutt.  I've got french, english, and irish ancestry (as far as I know).  Being adopted, I'm unaware of any finer divisions or of when my ancestors actually migrated here.  My daughter is even crazier, since my wife is vietnamese, so she's a euro-asian-mutt.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 15, 2005)

My question to your question would be, "Why do we need any designation at all, especially on Federal documents?"

If this country is a melting pot, why do we:

Have to designate a race on thouands of government forms?
Have to designate a race on thousands of college applications?
Have to designate a race on drivers license applications?
Have to designate a race.......get my point yet?

Doesn't sound like a melting pot mentality. More like a bucket of oil and water.

What are people more proud of? Which flag do they prefer to hang on their rear view mirror? What languages are the public school forcing on our kids now? How many [undocumented] immigrants come over here to become American? How many just want the benefits? To me, if you want to keep America equal, the answers to these questions are a bit depressing.

This doesn't mean people are running around beating their chests saying "I'm _____ -American. When someone asks me what "nationality" I am, I'm happy to tell them my roots. But I AM an American.

Hey, when white or Anglo-Americans are the minority, I hope the new government grants me some of the same special treatments the current "minorities" have.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 15, 2005)

The whole ***** person from South Africa thing is intrueging.

 I am sure that there are forms out there being used to apply for jobs and scholarships and stuff that require you to check a race.  If a white South African ended up with a job of a scholardhip that was meant for an "African American" I wonder what would happen?

 The person could put "African Ameriacan" on the app and not be lieing...

 wierd.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 15, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If this country is a melting pot...
> :


It's not.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 15, 2005)

Aw, c'mon. Slap a rainbow sticker on your car next to that peace symbol. That'll help.


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> The whole ***** person from South Africa thing is intrueging.
> 
> I am sure that there are forms out there being used to apply for jobs and scholarships and stuff that require you to check a race. If a white South African ended up with a job of a scholardhip that was meant for an "African American" I wonder what would happen?
> 
> ...


We signed up my step-daughter for kindergarten listed as African American.  I am caucasian, so is her mother.  However her biological father is black.  My wife came home and told me she did this and I asked why.  Her reply - you never know, she might be elgible for better scholarships later on.




> Why aren't whites called European Americans?


because we don't want to be? :mp5: j/k


----------



## TigerWoman (Aug 15, 2005)

Then there is that North and South American delineation.  So what are South Americans?  They say they are Americans as well and we have no right on that title alone. Well, they are coming over our borders and melting into our pot anyway.

Both sets of my grandparents came over on the boat from Germany.  But my mother told me that they were told specifically not to speak German in their household.  This ancestry was more repressed by the war--who would want to be known as German?  

Ten years ago, I met a German woman who had just gotten her citizenship.  She was ashamed of her heritage so I told her it was mine as well.  But my grandparents left before the war.  It was not her burden of guilt nor should it be a black mark on the descendants of that regime.  I told her when you live here as a citizen, you are an American, nothing more, nothing less.  It should be the same with the black people, the indian people, indonesian people, the iranian, the iraqi people and the Somali too. In our town, the Somali are still called that, but if you talk to them, they don't want to ever go back.  But they keep to themselves, talk their language, organize their support organizations, keep to themselves.  They hold a lot of jobs around town, go to schools, buy homes, so they should be called American not Somalis.  I wonder if the women ever get drafted if they would have to discard their head scarves and dress.  If you live here, you fight, work and pay taxes for America and I think you should try to adopt the ways of America not create a mini-homeland.  In other words be proud of being an American.  TW


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 15, 2005)

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> I think of myself as an American Thai dyed Scot (being Thai & Scottish but all American


 A Thai Scot?  Och, lassie, ye're puttin' pepper 'n curry in yer haggis, then?

 -----

 Mike, read the post above.  I didn't say this country was a melting pot.  


 I think perhaps you're confusing it with the post on another recent thread where I was speaking of political perspectives, specifically writing the following:

_"The Left and Right are not clearly defined in a country whose population approaches 300 million. We are hardly the "melting pot," nor approaching the pluralistic ideal. But then too there has been some homogenization, and we find that many...if given a line item veto on their politics...strike unique stances of their own at various points of the political spectrum."_

 That appears to be the only time on MT where I use the phrase "melting pot," if the search engine serves. Perhaps you were confused.

 Now in reading your post, you seem to plead fairness.  Methinks you protest too much, however.  

 You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity." 

 What I find so infuriating about your post Mike is the incredible disingenuousness of it. You're coming off as a victim...one for whom the playing field is no longer level. You're adopting the tone so many on the Right now do by suggesting reverse discrimination, when the discrimination you describe does not come close to that felt by blacks in this country. 

 You want America equal now Mike? Glad to hear it. Then certainly you won't have any problem with the recent "Robin Hood" laws that distribute revenues from property taxes equally so that poor neighborhoods get the same educational funds that richer neighborhoods do. I'm sure you'll be happy to see your taxes go to urban renewal and jobs programs so that blacks and hispanics can get caught up economically with us white folk.

 You want us to take ethnic and racial references off of driver's licenses and government forms? Grand. Let's start with the Muslims. You're okay with that, right? Or should we keep all such references so we can statictically document the progress you suddenly and atypically seem to advocate? 

 Now as far as Spanish in the schools and the brown hordes crossing the borders, my wife teaches Spanish and the local illegals seem awfully hard working and some of their women are absolutely gorgeous...so I'm personally okay with it. According to this, the situation likely won't change:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12375951.htm

 In Texas, it seems, Anglos are a minority...with the nation soon to follow.  Suerte resistente, eh?

 I'll end this with a quote from the article.

 "Viewed through the myopic lens that xenophobes and bigots use, this information is bad news for Anglos. Sadly, some people think the game of life must have losers in order for others to win, and therefore they are threatened by the numbers."



 Regards,


 Steve


----------



## Bigshadow (Aug 16, 2005)

The whole melting pot thing is an illusion. Look at any community. Each group gravitates to the sections where their own race live. As someone stated, it is human nature to want to be around those that you can identify with. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is how it breaks down. You can see it in every major metropolitan area. Large communities of like people together and like a patchwork quilt they make something bigger. All the friction generally lies along those boundaries where they meet.

  The aforementioned is my opinions and observations only.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 16, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Mike, read the post above. I didn't say this country was a melting pot.


You're right, I did. With a bit of skepticism mind you.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I think perhaps you're confusing it with the post on another recent thread where I was speaking of political perspectives, specifically writing the following:
> 
> _"The Left and Right are not clearly defined in a country whose population approaches 300 million. We are hardly the "melting pot," nor approaching the pluralistic ideal. But then too there has been some homogenization, and we find that many...if given a line item veto on their politics...strike unique stances of their own at various points of the political spectrum."_
> 
> That appears to be the only time on MT where I use the phrase "melting pot," if the search engine serves. Perhaps you were confused.


No, I think you were.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now in reading your post, you seem to plead fairness. Methinks you protest too much, however.


There are far worse protests I'd be worried with. Like violent anti-American ones.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity ni**ers."


Maybe those were your benefits, as I prolly wasn't born in those times. Even if I were, nothing lost there. Thanks for the implied insult. It's the beginning of a far left debate.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What I find so infuriating about your post Mike is the incredible disingenuousness of it. You're coming off as a victim...one for whom the playing field is no longer level. You're adopting the tone so many on the Right now do by suggesting reverse discrimination, when the discrimination you describe does not come close to that felt by blacks in this country.


Well, its actually racism I have a problem with, regardless of color. A policy based on race IS racism. It all has to go.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You want America equal now Mike? Glad to hear it. Then certainly you won't have any problem with the recent "Robin Hood" laws that distribute revenues from property taxes equally so that poor neighborhoods get the same educational funds that richer neighborhoods do. I'm sure you'll be happy to see your taxes go to urban renewal and jobs programs so that blacks and hispanics can get caught up economically with us white folk.


Wow. So all whites are financially secure today? Let me check my calandar to make sure I didn't pull a Rip Van Winkle and wake up to a glorious rich white America with no poor you proclaim exists. Oh? you mean you accidentally left them out right? There are poor white neighborhoods? Or do you just lump them in with the term rednecks so you can feel better about it?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You want us to take ethnic and racial references off of driver's licenses and government forms? Grand. Let's start with the Muslims. You're okay with that, right?


Yes. Can you find a time when I claimed otherwise? Didn't think so.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Or should we keep all such references so we can statictically document the progress you suddenly and atypically seem to advocate?


Statictically?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now as far as Spanish in the schools and the brown hordes crossing the borders, my wife teaches Spanish and the local illegals seem awfully hard working and some of their women are absolutely gorgeous...so I'm personally okay with it. According to this, the situation likely won't change:
> 
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12375951.htm
> 
> In Texas, it seems, Anglos are a minority...with the nation soon to follow. Suerte resistente, eh?


You're probably OK with paying for health care for them all too. I am not.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'll end this with a quote from the article.
> 
> "Viewed through the myopic lens that xenophobes and bigots use, this information is bad news for Anglos. Sadly, some people think the game of life must have losers in order for others to win, and therefore they are threatened by the numbers."


I'm going to avoid the whole straw man your sacred article builds up. Where's my matches?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 16, 2005)

Originally Posted by *hardheadjarhead*
_You suggest that minorities are getting special treatments, yet fail to note that you as a white person have lost some of yours. You are no longer allowed to sit in a separate and better dining car on a train. Blacks soldiers returning from the Iraq war are allowed to sit next to you in a restaurant, and no longer have to eat outside and back of the kitchen--as their grandfathers had to do in WWII (while white German prisoners got to eat inside). Black men in South Carolina no longer have to tip their hat to you, were you to travel there. They're allowed to look at your wife or girlfriend without it being construed as subhuman lechery. They're allowed to vehemently speak their mind without being termed "uppity ni**ers." _




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Maybe those were your benefits, as I prolly wasn't born in those times. Even if I were, nothing lost there. Thanks for the implied insult. It's the beginning of a far left debate.


Refrence the "Hate America?" thread and the "Punitive Liberalism" topic...classic example of dredging up past wrongs as an example of what is wrong today. Nothing will ever be "right" or in the past for these types. Im surprised we arent still flagellating ourselves for stuff that happened in 1776 (although Im sure I could probably find examples here somewhere). I too do not recall ever having any of these "rights" and I too sense some sort of "tactic" of smothering the opposing view by tossing a blanket of racisim over it.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Refrence the "Hate America?" thread and the "Punitive Liberalism" topic...classic example of dredging up past wrongs as an example of what is wrong today. Nothing will ever be "right" or in the past for these types. Im surprised we arent still flagellating ourselves for stuff that happened in 1776 (although Im sure I could probably find examples here somewhere). I too do not recall ever having any of these "rights" and I too sense some sort of "tactic" of smothering the opposing view by tossing a blanket of racisim over it.


Heh, I probably should, if not only for the comedic value. These whackjobs crack me up.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

No offense, guys, but...

Speaking as a registered Independent, a centrist/moderate (I even know what that means, too!), and a supporter of a McCaine '08 presidency...

Some people _have_ been coming off as a bit on the nutty side. But it isn't Steve.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> The whole melting pot thing is an illusion. Look at any community. Each group gravitates to the sections where their own race live. As someone stated, it is human nature to want to be around those that you can identify with. Right, wrong, or indifferent that is how it breaks down. You can see it in every major metropolitan area. Large communities of like people together and like a patchwork quilt they make something bigger. All the friction generally lies along those boundaries where they meet.
> 
> The aforementioned is my opinions and observations only.


 Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> No offense, guys, but...
> 
> Speaking as a registered Independent, a centrist/moderate (I even know what that means, too!), and a supporter of a McCaine '08 presidency...
> 
> Some people _have_ been coming off as a bit on the nutty side. But it isn't Steve.


 Isn't a centrist someone who believes very strongly in mediocrity? Say what you want about extreme right wingers and extreme left wingers, at least they're willing to make a stand. (That's just a joke, by the way.)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.





Sounds good...sounds wonderful. Now, how does one do that?  Give me some hard examples.

Start with religion.  Now how does one going about finding common ground between a Muslim, a secular Jew, and an Evangelical Christian that has voted Republican since Reagan?  Bridge that gap, PLEASE.

Now find the common ground between a Chippewa on the White Earth Reservation and a retired Admiral living in Hobe Sound, Florida.

Find common ground between a white man from Mississippi who has been laid off from his factory job and a black cop in Philadelphia who is going to have fairly good job security the rest of his life.

You might in your search for common ground come up with English...the flag...the National Anthem...or any other icons of nationalism.  This, however, provides very little for the Mississippian's kids at Christmas, the Chippewa who gets cold stares from the whites just off the reservation, and the Muslim whose mosque just got firebombed (as happened here two months ago).  These people don't share much of a common history.  

Teaching tolerance and showing our children how to respect diversity will end bigotry and racism.   If we teach that "different" isn't so bad, then we might accomplish something.  We might get somewhere if we can actually end segregation...though illegal it is enforced by economic boundaries.  If you don't believe this visit a high school in Gary, Indiana.

You can not reach any common ground without mutual interaction.  You can't get that without mutual respect.  You can't get mutual respect without mutual tolerance.  You can't get tolerance if one or both sides fear the other.

So...what do you suggest?  How do you intend to implement it?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, though if we truly believe that is irrefutable human nature, that means this country is going to destroy itself. If we can't rise above sectionalism, we will not survive. Common ground, not diversity, is the cornerstone of any society. Accentuating diversity does not lead to harmony, it leads to conflict. The greater the differences we perceive between ourselves and our neighbors, the more suspicious and intolerant we become. Teaching tolerance is futile, we have to teach how to identify and appreciate commonality.



Actually, teaching _only_ one _or_ the other is what is "futile".

Advocating an overemphasis on diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism, and "tolerance" leads inevitably to the re-tribalization of America (which has precisely what has happened in some areas), "identity" politics, and a type of permissive moral relativism (which itself is just a veiled form of moral absolutism). This is exactly what some social commentators have identified as the "moral decline" of society.

On the other hand, however, advocating an overemphasis on commonality, patriotic nationalism, and "unity" leads inevitably to a type of jingoistic sociocentrism in which the values, traditions, and mores of one group (either the majority or the ones in power) are imposed upon the entirety of society as _the_ standard for how to live, resulting in a rather rigid moral absolutism. The individual differences found among minorities (both ethnic and political) and sub-cultures within the society tend to be white-washed as "unpatriotic" or, worse, "traitorous".

From where I'm standing, _both_ of these imbalances have occured in copious amounts in the present-day United States.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Isn't a centrist someone who believes very strongly in mediocrity?



Um, no. My personal definition of "centrism" entails the following:

1) That the causes and solutions to human suffering have both internal and external paths. The "liberal" typically leans toward an externalist orientation (society is to blame for personal wrongs), whereas the "conservative" typically leans toward an internalist orientation (its your fault the way your life is, regardless of the opporunities or circumstances you were afforded). The "centrist" sees the partial validity in both of these positions, as well as their shortcomings.

2) That both moral absolutism and moral relativism are useful, but ultimately anemic philosophies of life. The "centrist" recognizes the dangers of imposing a singular set of mores on all human beings, but also realizes the logical hypocrisy of postulating that the only truth is there is no truth. Typically, a mature "centrist" advocates a type of development dialecticism, seeing "truth" and "morality" unfold within a multilayered, contextual framework.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Say what you want about extreme right wingers and extreme left wingers, at least they're willing to make a stand.



There are only two things I see in common about ideological extremists:

1) Their fanatacism - a type of myopic close-mindedness that prevents them from even acknowledging their opponents _might_ have some positive points.

2) Their amoral opportunism - a willingness to use _any_ weapon, tactic, or strategy (no matter how repulsive or irrational) to simultaneously make their opponents looks "bad" and themselves look "good".


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sounds good...sounds wonderful. Now, how does one do that?  Give me some hard examples.



I'm not sgtmac_46, but I'll give it a shot.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Start with religion.  Now how does one going about finding common ground between a Muslim, a secular Jew, and an Evangelical Christian that has voted Republican since Reagan?  Bridge that gap, PLEASE.



Already been done. Its called the 'perennial philosophy'. Adlous Huxley wrote a book about it almost a century ago, and modern religious scholar Huston Smith is still writing about it today.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now find the common ground between a Chippewa on the White Earth Reservation and a retired Admiral living in Hobe Sound, Florida.
> 
> Find common ground between a white man from Mississippi who has been laid off from his factory job and a black cop in Philadelphia who is going to have fairly good job security the rest of his life.
> 
> ...



Personally, I'd suggest a postconventional moral philosophy of shared humanity. Not something that's generally embraced in this world of nationalism, ethnic "pride", and sectionalism --- but it is what is needed, nonetheless.

The tricky part, however, is that the human psyche isn't "flat". You can't just say "be reasonable!" to an individual that lacks the cognitive structures to support such a worldview. As such, I feel a developmental approach is perhaps most appropriate (the general approach of the cognitive-structuralist school of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Cook-Greuter), introducing the individual to novel cognitive pacers at appropriate stages in their own moral development.

While this is taking place, it would greatly help things to have a governance system that supports such a developmental process to take place in the first place. As long as our governments and leaders rigidly advocate things like moral relativism, ethnic tribalism, patriotic sociocentrism, or absolutist religious elitism, we're never gonna get there. A new way of thinking is needed.

That's my take, anyway. Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, teaching _only_ one _or_ the other is what is "futile".
> 
> From where I'm standing, _both_ of these imbalances have occured in copious amounts in the present-day United States.


 I'm not claiming otherwise, though it is over-emphasis on diversity that has created the specific problem we are discussing.  The opposite has created other problems.  




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Um, no. My personal definition of "centrism" entails the following:


 You wasted an awful lot of time and effort responding to a statement that was made tongue and cheek.  You need to relax.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sounds good...sounds wonderful. Now, how does one do that? Give me some hard examples.


 I'm just pointing out the situation. If what Bigshadow outlined is true (and it may be) the fact is, there may not be a solution. 

Competition and conflict sometimes seem to be hallmark traits of human interaction. We can tame it on the short term, but in the long run, "The center doesn't hold". I hope Bigshadow is wrong, but history doesn't seem to support that. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Start with religion. Now how does one going about finding common ground between a Muslim, a secular Jew, and an Evangelical Christian that has voted Republican since Reagan? Bridge that gap, PLEASE.


 I'm not sure they can. How's that for an answer.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now find the common ground between a Chippewa on the White Earth Reservation and a retired Admiral living in Hobe Sound, Florida.


Maybe there isn't one.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Find common ground between a white man from Mississippi who has been laid off from his factory job and a black cop in Philadelphia who is going to have fairly good job security the rest of his life.


 Maybe the gulf is too big.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You might in your search for common ground come up with English...the flag...the National Anthem...or any other icons of nationalism. This, however, provides very little for the Mississippian's kids at Christmas, the Chippewa who gets cold stares from the whites just off the reservation, and the Muslim whose mosque just got firebombed (as happened here two months ago). These people don't share much of a common history.


Again, the divide between those groups may be to big. If they don't share common ground, and if we decide that being a part of the same nation isn't really any big deal, and doesn't mean anything anyway anymore (Remember in WWII, when Native Americans, blacks, hispanics, Japanese, joined the military out of national pride and a desire to serve), if that commonality purpose is lost, maybe there is no bond. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Teaching tolerance and showing our children how to respect diversity will end bigotry and racism. If we teach that "different" isn't so bad, then we might accomplish something. We might get somewhere if we can actually end segregation...though illegal it is enforced by economic boundaries. If you don't believe this visit a high school in Gary, Indiana.


 The irony is that the most racist people I know, are those who have lived on the fringes between competing groups, not in the most remote places away from diversity. The most racist people I know are working class people who have lived in urban areas where the population is extremely diverse. They viewed other races as competition for survival in those areas, and it was overabundance of exposure coupled with the idea that they were in competition, not a lack of exposure, that resulted in those racist views.

It seems that lack of exposure isn't the problem. So teaching everyone that bigotry and racism is wrong on an intellectual level isn't the answer.

The reality is in understanding of how the human mind creates in and out groups. Human beings engaged in a common cause with others, tend to view those other people, regardless of race and other differences, as part of their in-group. However, when those people come to cross purposes, they tend to lump others in to out-groups. It's normal human behavior. 

Therefore, racism isn't so much taught, as it is naturally occurring in the human mind. How we fight it is by working toward a common purpose. We don't fight racism by teaching people about other cultures. We fight it by working side by side with other races toward a common purpose. This is a subtle but distinct difference.

Why do you think that the first place we saw the racial barriers come down was in the military? It certainly isn't because the military is so progressive. It's because the military is one organization where commonality of purpose is a way of life. That commonality of purpose causes everyone who is part of it to view others involved in that purpose as part of one large in-group, regardless of race or other differences.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You can not reach any common ground without mutual interaction. You can't get that without mutual respect. You can't get mutual respect without mutual tolerance. You can't get tolerance if one or both sides fear the other.
> 
> So...what do you suggest? How do you intend to implement it?


You don't need to teach tolerance. You need to understand the human mind. You need to understand how and why people form in and out groups. You get mutual respect by being part of the same overall goal, that's how you get tolerance. 

Fear isn't the issue, people don't hate others out of ignorance, that's a truism that isn't really true. They hate others because they view others and their group status as being a threat to their in-group. It's about working and cross purposes. 

Our society creates a circumstance where it appears as if different groups are in constant competition, the result is going to be out-group behavior on the part of both of them. They view each other as a threat, many times for very real reasons because they are working at cross-purposes.

As for my solutions, I don't have any more of those than you do. I'm merely pointing out the problems. But if we don't understand how the human mind works, and how social groups form in group and out group opinions, we are spinning our wheels.

Of course one suggestion might be ending the perception that we are seperate people. It is in that sense that I feel overemphasis on teaching diversity is wrong. It adds to the belief that we are seperate peoples, instead of one group united toward a common purpose, and the perception of seperation adds to the conflict.

You want to get a group of young men to get along? You don't do it by lecturing them about how tolerant they should be. That's futile. You sure has heck don't do it by extolling the virture of their differences, and how beautiful those differences make them.

You do it by placing them all in a difficult situation where they have to rely on each other to succeed. If they all pull together, they will respect one another, regardless of past differences.  

Schools have been doing that for years...they call them sports programs.  I know many guys who's first real contact with people of other races was in sports programs.  I know many guys who had never even really talked to someone of another race before playing football.  After a little while of suffering, working hard, playing together and relying on each other, they respected and admired each other more than any amount of preaching about diversity could bring.  Why?  Because they had a commonality of purpose and accepted each other in to their in-group.  They had to rely on each other.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 25, 2005)

> Especially when people like you spend your time pointing out everyones differences, rather than people embracing their similarities and working together



It's true. I'm not a comunist. Odd to even consider this as the American way given the US's commonly stated penchant for rugged individualism. How exactly is that compatible with the idea of the melting pot?


----------

