Re: Race versus culture
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:10 am
davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:57 pmYou are absolutely an ignoramus. Segregation of races in the big urban centers of the North was a direct consequence of deliberate public policy to refuse to rent to blacks in white neighborhoods, to segregate schools, even to make black people drink at different fountains. It was called "Jim Crow." Looks like you are just as stupid as the idiot who started this thread.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:42 pmNew York? Oh please. The blacks etc. have their own neighbourhoods. I wonder how many of them live in central Manhattan or whatever the expensive neighbourhoods are. It also evolved naturally in an organic way, with infrastructure growing with the population.davidm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:26 pm
The American “melting pot” has illusory aspects to it, but it is not ONLY an illusion. You’re quite correct in much of what you say above, including that vast territorial stretches of the U.S. (mostly non-urban) remain mainly if not exclusively white.
But that’s the problem! The people who live there have a provincial view of things.
I live in New York City and before that, I lived in San Francisco, and these places most definitely ARE melting pots (but also multi-culti!). When one actually encounters people of different cultures, ethnicities, and “races,” one is almost forced (barring perverse stubbornness, malignancy or outright stupidity) to abandon racist and provincialist viewpoints. One discovers that all these people who we are propagandized to believe are so “different” from us (white people) really are very much similar to us in all the ways that count: desiring to work, to love others and be loved, to care for their families, to provide for their kids.
Also, when one meets and gets to know these people, their allegedly ominous differences cease to be threatening. They become fascinating.
I have to laugh, for example, when our vile president and the white rubes who voted for him slander Mexicans. I know tons of Mexicans in New York and S.F, some here legally and some not, and many of then work their asses off at menial jobs for substandard wages. Sometimes they live six and seven to a room.They aren’t taking from white America, they’re being exploited by white America. See what the price of lettuce would be in California were it not for undocumented Mexican labor. Of course one should remember (most Americans have no historical knowledge) that the U.S. stole about a third of Mexico’s land in the 1840s, in a war of aggression opposed by then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln (and Jeff Davis, for that matter), opposition that killed Lincoln’s political career until his Nixon-like comeback in the late 1850s. As Gore Vidal noted back in the 1980s, Mexican immigration, legal or otherwise, into the U.S. is a case of Mexicans quite justifiably trying to reclaim land that was stolen from then by force of arms in an unjust war. I wish them well, and I also like the fact that in many parts of the southwest English and Spanish are slowly merging into a language informally called Spanglish.
A melting pot does not contradict a multicultural society. A multicultural society is a good thing. It educates one to the realities of the world beyond one’s own limited experience.
Basically, at the risk of oversimplification, the “melting pot” aspect of it is (roughly) supposed to work this way: People can, and do, honor and celebrate their own cultures, histories, languages, food and art, etc., as they should. A world without a multiplicity of these things would be very boring indeed. It’s the kind of world the Nazis wanted to achieve.
But (the way it is supposed to work) in the public square, everyone agrees (even if sometimes grudgingly) to adhere to a set of basic civic norms that evolve over time: the rule of law, the Constitution, the universal rights of men and women, equality before the law, etc. etc. Obviously I know America does not live up to these ideals, but they are goals that I think are worth pursuing.
IMO, in actual practice it works something like this: Suppose you’re a white racist slimebag. Fine, no one is forcing you to associate with black people in your shitty little private lives. But in the public square, you can’t (tough luck for you!) decide, for instance, not to serve people at the Woolworth lunch counter where you work (even if you manage the place). This was adjudicated in the early 1960s. If you don’t want to associate with black people in this public context, then quit your job. But you don’t get to practice discrimination outside your shitty little private lives. And even in your private lives there are certain law-imposed limits to your behavior. (You can’t refuse to rent an apartment you own to a black person, for example.)
I grew up in suburban Detroit and I recall, in Detroit and also in Chicago, old Polish babushkas chattering away in their native tongues, paying no attention to assimilation. But their children and grandchildren, it turns out empirically, really did get assimilated, for the most part, but if they were lucky, they also held on to their heritage — which is good.
I’m of Polish descent (second generation; though of course I was denigrated as a “Polack” when I was growing up because of my Polish last name) and I certainly assimilated — assimilated too much, as I look back on it. I wish, for example, that I had learned the Polish language when I was growing up, but it was not spoken in my household and everyone where I lived was expected to learn white-bread English only.
As to the Middle East, you are quite correct in what you write about the U.S.’s shitty little wars there, but I will go further and point out this: the entire Mideast mess is a direct consequence of the triumph of the U.S. and its allies over Germany and its allies in World War I. That triumph included defeating the German ally the Ottoman Empire, breaking it up and turning into a bunch of colonies of the West with no regard whatsoever to the desires, cultures or histories of the people living there. This idiocy was exacerbated when the West imposed Israel on the Mideast in the late 40s, displacing the native Palestinians. When good ol’ Harry Truman was asked about the injustice of this, he allegedly shrugged and said, “Here in the U.S., more Jews vote than Arabs.” Today’s Mideast horror show, ladies and gentleman of the West, is variously called “payback,” “blowback,” and “the chickens coming home to roost.”
But again, the average American is blissfully oblivious of history. A few years ago a saw a poll in which about 40 percent of Americans didn’t know whether the American Civil War or World War II happened first. Another poll showed that a substantial portion of Americans believed that Lincoln was president during World War II.
I did not say we HAVE TO do anything. As you would understand if you actually read the part of my posts where I talked about the perfectly admissiboe private behavior of ignorant racists like you.Oh, and here we have you contradicting yourself. It's WRONG and RACIST for people to complain about mass immigration because we have to EMBRACE the 'multicultural meltingpot', ...
LOL, you are an idiot. Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their native lands to make way for an influx of people who became Israel. This is in no way tantamount to regulated immigration to the West. Have the German people, for instance, been driven out of Germany to make way for Muslims to take over the country? Can you possibly be more ill-informed?...yet here you are going in to bat for the Palestinians because they had mass immigration of a different culture forced on THEM. No patronising double standard here at all.
Time to trot out the 'r' word. The standard fall-back insult of the PC when they feel cornered and want to silence argument by attempting to 'shame' the opposition with politically-charged buzzwords. Ok then, jew-hating slimeball. They weren't evicted, they ran away because they were RACIST against JEWS. Plus, the land was purchased (not cheaply either) from wealthy Arab landowners who didn't even live there. So really, they are the ones who caused the trouble. Fancy selling off the land from under a peoples' feet. Terrible isn't it? It's fortunate that I don't give a flying rat's arse what the PC 'think'.
Of course, anyone who doesn't 'think' exactly as the PC 'Progressive' lobby dictates they should 'think' must automatically be a 'racist' or 'bigot' (both words having been rendered meaningless through over-use and abuse). I wonder where all the PC arseholes were when their 'heroes' (American military thugs) were murdering muslims and destroying their countries. They were, and still are, awfully silent about it. You know, that's what I call RACIST. The 'Progressives' spent an awful lot of time and energay wailing in grief-stricken agony and protesting over the loss endured by their beloved Hillary, the vile, warmongering, murderous monster of a woman ('we came, we saw, we killed hehehehehehe').As for 'Jim Crow' (oh, how ignorant of me, as a non-American, not to be familiar with the expression (I thought it was an alcoholic beverage
), especially coming from someone who just admitted that a huge percentage of Americans think that Lincoln was President during WW11), even where there's no 'Jim Crow' the races tend to naturally segregate themselves. I suppose that means they must be all 'racist'.
