Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:02 am

vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.

I'm betting that the Indians would disagree. And really, the United States is more like the Washington Empire. As we have been hashing out in the "who flies this flag" thread, the states that tried to pull away from the Union were pummeled for it. "Unity" under threat of force sounds an awful lot like what the roman empire was doing.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die


Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:25 am

vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:06 am

clampdaddy wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.

I'm betting that the Indians would disagree. And really, the United States is more like the Washington Empire. As we have been hashing out in the "who flies this flag" thread, the states that tried to pull away from the Union were pummeled for it. "Unity" under threat of force sounds an awful lot like what the roman empire was doing.


Native Americans today would fall under a subculture as they did almost immediately after they were subjugated. They were wholly surrounded and enveloped by the culture of the conqueror. Spinner's statements are sound. When immigrants come to this country, they are immediately immersed in its culture, even if they choose to live in a community entirely comprised of others from their native lands. No matter how hard they try to hang onto vestiges of their native culture, they will remain vestiges. The dominant culture always prevails and quickly. Language is a part of a culture and only a part of it. It is not the biggest part and does not necessarily translate into not assimilating into the whether someone has assimilated into another culture.

Conflating our civil war, which was a civil war in a unicultural society over a constitution all parties entered into voluntarily to the Roman Empire's conquest and subsequent brutal dominion over foreign societies, is absolutely preposterous.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:12 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.



The number of wars a nation fights does not determine the status of empire.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:34 am

vincentpa wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.

I'm betting that the Indians would disagree. And really, the United States is more like the Washington Empire. As we have been hashing out in the "who flies this flag" thread, the states that tried to pull away from the Union were pummeled for it. "Unity" under threat of force sounds an awful lot like what the roman empire was doing.


Native Americans today would fall under a subculture as they did almost immediately after they were subjugated. They were wholly surrounded and enveloped by the culture of the conqueror. Spinner's statements are sound. When immigrants come to this country, they are immediately immersed in its culture, even if they choose to live in a community entirely comprised of others from their native lands. No matter how hard they try to hang onto vestiges of their native culture, they will remain vestiges. The dominant culture always prevails and quickly. Language is a part of a culture and only a part of it. It is not the biggest part and does not necessarily translate into not assimilating into the whether someone has assimilated into another culture.

Conflating our civil war, which was a civil war in a unicultural society over a constitution all parties entered into voluntarily to the Roman Empire's conquest and subsequent brutal dominion over foreign societies, is absolutely preposterous.


The native Americans were the predominant culture on this continent when we got here. That predominant culture was made up of the subcultures of various Indian nations/tribes.

The south most definitely has a different culture than the north. Just as the southwest has a different culture than the north east. Simply writing those differences of as subculture is akin to saying that western Europe has one culture made up of smaller subcultures.

It is clearly written history that states were allowed into the union under the written and agreed to terms that they be allowed to leave.......were states actually allowed to leave? Once they did, they formed a new country. Did they come back into the union voluntarily?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:25 am

vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.



The number of wars a nation fights does not determine the status of empire.


The number of nations it fights, defeats, and controls determines empire. We are still in Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... We still fight in the Philipines, South America, and Africa. We simply refuse to take control and run it like an empire should be run. Instead we claim to allow them to rule themselves, then muck about in their business for the next 100 years or so. Empire it is.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:50 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.



The number of wars a nation fights does not determine the status of empire.


The number of nations it fights, defeats, and controls determines empire. We are still in Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... We still fight in the Philipines, South America, and Africa. We simply refuse to take control and run it like an empire should be run. Instead we claim to allow them to rule themselves, then muck about in their business for the next 100 years or so. Empire it is.



We do no occupy nor do we dictate to other countries. Dictate meaning they must follow our orders. We do not rape and pillage other nations. You speak metaphorically. Empire has its definition. Try as you might to distort it, it is what it is.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:02 pm

How can we be a multicultural country? We are the land of the free and home of the genocide.

Hey, if the unreverend Jesse Baby-Daddy Jackson says so, it must be true.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362897/jesse-jackson-calls-us-land-free-and-home-genocide-hateful-tirade-alec-torres

Jesse Jackson went on an angry tirade at Furman University in South Carolina on Wednesday night, inveighing against America and conservatives as perpetrators of evil and hate. Invited to speak at “Keeping Hope Alive: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement,” an official university event where he was hailed as a champion for social justice and a “global peacemaker,” Jackson spent over an hour riling up the crowd with his remarks.

Peacemaker my ass. He is a community destroy, race hustler, and political agitator.

“Those in the Confederacy sought to maintain the walls [of slavery] and secede from the country, the shots fired at Fort Sumter – the beginning of the Tea Party, the ‘Fort Sumter’ Tea Party, who sought to secede from the Union, set their own government, their own currency, sought to ally with France and Britain, to form their own country,” Jackson said, as audience members laughed.

And now we also know the Civil war was about the slavery and was the start of the Tea Party movement as well.

This is what that PC multiculturism crap gets you. Angry, bitter hatefilled morons as so-called leaders that are honored for their skin color and above reproach no matter how horrible a human being they are.

Before the event, a group of student protesters stood outside to pass out literature detailing Jackson’s controversial past. The literature was confiscated and, according to student reports, administrators told the protesters to leave.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:12 pm

clampdaddy wrote:The native Americans were the predominant culture on this continent when we got here. That predominant culture was made up of the subcultures of various Indian nations/tribes.


First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.

Indians were a disparate lot. There was no single culture or language, i.e. there was no predominant single Indian culture. As such, the cultures of the Indians were not homogenous enough to call them one culture with subcultures. In fact, they had starkly different cultures with different values. You clearly are confused with the definitions of culture and subculture.

clampdaddy wrote:The south most definitely has a different culture than the north. Just as the southwest has a different culture than the north east. Simply writing those differences of as subculture is akin to saying that western Europe has one culture made up of smaller subcultures.


Again, you clearly are confused about the definition of cultures and subcultures. You are also very ignorant of Western European cultures, which are distinct. There is no overall Western European culture. Each nation has a distinct and separate culture from the other. Conversely, the North and the South were not separate cultures. They shared common values, common language, common history, common heritage and common lives. The minor differences between the two would amount to subcultural differences.

clampdaddy wrote: It is clearly written history that states were allowed into the union under the written and agreed to terms that they be allowed to leave.......were states actually allowed to leave? Once they did, they formed a new country. Did they come back into the union voluntarily?


Again, you confuse the word Empire. The Southern states were not conquered and then forced into servitude to the north. The Southern states and the northern states voluntarily entered into an agreement that they would bind together to form a nation. That nation found itself in a civil war. The northern won that civil war. Nowhere in history is the nation formed or maintained after a civil war considered to be an empire.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby ohioboy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:56 pm

vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.



The number of wars a nation fights does not determine the status of empire.


The number of nations it fights, defeats, and controls determines empire. We are still in Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... We still fight in the Philipines, South America, and Africa. We simply refuse to take control and run it like an empire should be run. Instead we claim to allow them to rule themselves, then muck about in their business for the next 100 years or so. Empire it is.



We do no occupy nor do we dictate to other countries. Dictate meaning they must follow our orders. We do not rape and pillage other nations. You speak metaphorically. Empire has its definition. Try as you might to distort it, it is what it is.

we do not occupy? and we dont dictate?

i think you are serious. :lol3:
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:06 pm

vincentpa wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:The native Americans were the predominant culture on this continent when we got here. That predominant culture was made up of the subcultures of various Indian nations/tribes.


First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.

Indians were a disparate lot. There was no single culture or language, i.e. there was no predominant single Indian culture. As such, the cultures of the Indians were not homogenous enough to call them one culture with subcultures. In fact, they had starkly different cultures with different values. You clearly are confused with the definitions of culture and subculture.

clampdaddy wrote:The south most definitely has a different culture than the north. Just as the southwest has a different culture than the north east. Simply writing those differences of as subculture is akin to saying that western Europe has one culture made up of smaller subcultures.


Again, you clearly are confused about the definition of cultures and subcultures. You are also very ignorant of Western European cultures, which are distinct. There is no overall Western European culture. Each nation has a distinct and separate culture from the other. Conversely, the North and the South were not separate cultures. They shared common values, common language, common history, common heritage and common lives. The minor differences between the two would amount to subcultural differences.

clampdaddy wrote: It is clearly written history that states were allowed into the union under the written and agreed to terms that they be allowed to leave.......were states actually allowed to leave? Once they did, they formed a new country. Did they come back into the union voluntarily?


Again, you confuse the word Empire. The Southern states were not conquered and then forced into servitude to the north. The Southern states and the northern states voluntarily entered into an agreement that they would bind together to form a nation. That nation found itself in a civil war. The northern won that civil war. Nowhere in history is the nation formed or maintained after a civil war considered to be an empire.


#1. You are the one that used Rome's subjugation and brutal treatment of ethnic people within its boarders. How is using the native Americans a red herring? Because they didn't produce goods? Because they were savages? So, by your requirements the Portuguese couldn't count Brazil as part of its empire? How about the African lands that the Brits fought savage tribes for?

#2. I know there is no single western European culture. That was my point. Other than the federal government, holidays, and the shows we watch on tv, I find myself wondering what culture someone from, let's say, southern Arizona shares with someone from deep in the bayous of Louisiana, or the woods of Maine.

#3. The biggest problem I have with conversations about "the civil war" is that we constantly refer to it as a civil war. It was not a fight within one country to change it or overtake it's government. It was a war between two different countries. The confederate states had a union of their own, a constitution, a president, etc., etc.. So our civil war was no more a civil war than was our revolutionary war. Same thing happened. The colonies told the government that they previously belonged to to kick rocks, and the big government waged war in an attempt to bring the upstarts back under their control. The only real differences between the two were which side won, and that the colonists waited until after the war to draft a constitution and elect a president. So really, in some ways our revolutionary war was closer to being a civil war than the war between the states was.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:43 am

vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:45 am

slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:

Translation: I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so I'm going to make fun of Vinny. :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56808
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:47 am

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:

Translation: I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so I'm going to make fun of Vinny. :hi:


Read back in the thread. Pointed out MO on the subject at hand... But the grip you guys have on each other is strong like bull. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:49 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:

Translation: I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so I'm going to make fun of Vinny. :hi:


Read back in the thread. Pointed out MO on the subject at hand... But the grip you guys have on each other is strong like bull. :lol3:

It's your MO on every thread in the C.I. forum. You are not here to debate nor discuss topics.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56808
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:13 am

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:

Translation: I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so I'm going to make fun of Vinny. :hi:


Read back in the thread. Pointed out MO on the subject at hand... But the grip you guys have on each other is strong like bull. :lol3:

It's your MO on every thread in the C.I. forum. You are not here to debate nor discuss topics.


Which is why back near the beginning of this thread I gave my point of view. You can accuse all you want but this thread alone proves you are wrong since my discussion point is already here. You simply don't like the opinion.

Also, when someone shows up and discusses or debates I'll participate (and have). Most of the time when someone from the left says anything the Tea Party zealots here go on the attack - just as you have.

It's hilarious only because it's so predictable.

Seriously, you've even made it over the California forum to make that same accusation. In fact, if you look at your own responses you'll see you've attacked me solely for putting my responses to you very low on priority list.

If you don't like the fact that I've already called for the Tea Party's demise. Tough. It's going to die and all the effort you guys made to push it here is going to go to waste. Apparently the only thing left is for you to do is to try to remove me from this forum, so you don't have to live through the day where I say "I told you so".

Because someday and relatively soon... I will. :lol3:

Even for such a wonderful occasion... I'm going to wait till after duck hunting season. We all have priorities. That's mine. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:15 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:First and foremost, the Indians as referenced in this thread are a red herring. The Indians were inhabitants of North America in relatively small numbers when the English and French arrived. They did not have nations and did not have borders. There was no state outside of the tribe. They had no economy. They produced no goods. They were savages, Stone Age people. Conquering a nationless people few in number does not make the US and empire.


Translation: I couldn't even get a date with a Native American girl. So I hate them too. :lol3: :lol3:

Translation: I have nothing to contribute to this discussion, so I'm going to make fun of Vinny. :hi:


Read back in the thread. Pointed out MO on the subject at hand... But the grip you guys have on each other is strong like bull. :lol3:

It's your MO on every thread in the C.I. forum. You are not here to debate nor discuss topics.


Which is why back near the beginning of this thread I gave my point of view. You can accuse all you want but this thread alone proves you are wrong since my discussion point is already here. You simply don't like the opinion.

Also, when someone shows up and discusses or debates I'll participate (and have). Most of the time when someone from the left says anything the Tea Party zealots here go on the attack - just as you have.

It's hilarious only because it's so predictable.

Seriously, you've even made it over the California forum to make that same accusation. In fact, if you look at your own responses you'll see you've attacked me solely for putting my responses to you very low on priority list.

If you don't like the fact that I've already called for the Tea Party's demise. Tough. It's going to die and all the effort you guys made to push it here is going to go to waste. Apparently the only thing left is for you to do is to try to remove me from this forum, so you don't have to live through the day where I say "I told you so".

Because someday and relatively soon... I will. :lol3:

Even for such a wonderful occasion... I'm going to wait till after duck hunting season. We all have priorities. That's mine. :lol3:

^^^^thanks for proving my point yet again...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56808
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:45 am

LOL.

See..? You can't even handle the truth when I hand it to you.

Now quit trying to drag me into a spat so you can get more post views.

See you later alligator, I have to go reload some shells because are ducks to kill. :hi:

Again, you should try it! :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:21 am

clampdaddy wrote:
#1. You are the one that used Rome's subjugation and brutal treatment of ethnic people within its boarders. How is using the native Americans a red herring? Because they didn't produce goods? Because they were savages? So, by your requirements the Portuguese couldn't count Brazil as part of its empire? How about the African lands that the Brits fought savage tribes for?

I do see your point. However, I believe there is a difference. Sadly, the Africans were far more advanced than the natives in North America. The Africans were iron age people; the Indians were of the stone age. The Africans produced goods. They traded with other Africans. The Africans had lands and territories. The lands of the Africans were seized by force or subterfuge and were exploited. Africa was populated too. While all of this seems similar, it is but it isn't. Most of the Indians had no real lands nor claims to the lands. There were so few of the Indians; Americans far outnumbered them. Vast and I mean vast tracts of land were not inhabited, i.e. mostly all of the continental U.S. Most land was not seized. Most all lands were not obtained through subterfuge. It was not necessary. Most Indian tribes never fought the US government. Americans just moved into vacant land. Most settled peacefully and made treaties. Some chose the wrong sides in fights wars between European powers and wars Americans fought against the British. That wasn't conquest; they chose the losing side. There were tribes we fought. They were few in number. Some might argue that the natural resources were plundered. They really weren't. The natural resources were utilized and the wealth created remained. The US expansion westward was more of a natural progression like any other expansion of peoples throughout history. The Indians ended up adopting the ways of the Americans and have had to make a concerted effort to maintain any vestiges of their heritage.

Now compare that with what your examples of true empire. The Romans, Portuguese, Brits, Spanish, etc. These people conquered other nations with real societies. They subjugated the people. They raped their natural resources and plundered their wealth., The plundered wealth was sent back to the home country of conquerors, not benefiting the locals one bit. For those societies that were less civilized, they enslaved the local populations, or in the case of the Romans enslaved civilized peoples too. They forced them into labor. The conquerors taxed them and otherwise dominated them. The conquerors were few in number compared to the population they controlled. The culture of the conquerors never became the prevailing culture; at least until a sufficient number of the natives were exterminated, which happened in many instances.


clampdaddy wrote:
#2. I know there is no single western European culture. That was my point. Other than the federal government, holidays, and the shows we watch on tv, I find myself wondering what culture someone from, let's say, southern Arizona shares with someone from deep in the bayous of Louisiana, or the woods of Maine.


:huh: Your point was that Western Europe was not a single culture? That's not how it read. I'll take it as that if you say that was your intent.

Those things you mentioned such as government, holidays, TV, etc. all make a culture plus many more. Americans of all races from all places share much more in common than you realize. You don't have many foreign friends or socialize in foreign circles, do you? If you did, you would understand how much more the people from diverse regions of the US have in common than we do with closely related societies such as those from Western Europe.

clampdaddy wrote:
#3. The biggest problem I have with conversations about "the civil war" is that we constantly refer to it as a civil war. It was not a fight within one country to change it or overtake it's government. It was a war between two different countries. The confederate states had a union of their own, a constitution, a president, etc., etc.. So our civil war was no more a civil war than was our revolutionary war. Same thing happened. The colonies told the government that they previously belonged to to kick rocks, and the big government waged war in an attempt to bring the upstarts back under their control. The only real differences between the two were which side won, and that the colonists waited until after the war to draft a constitution and elect a president. So really, in some ways our revolutionary war was closer to being a civil war than the war between the states was.


This is patently false. The U.S. was one country. It fought a civil war. By any historical account or definition, it was a civil war.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:33 am

No it wasn't. The Confederacy did not try and overthrow the US government.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:47 am

vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Comparing Rome to the US is not proper. Rome was an empire. It subjugated the other ethnicities within its borders and kept them in line with brutal, unrepentant force.



How man countries have we stomped on, attacked, or oppressed in our 200+ year history? If you go back and count it is a large number. Rome it is, with the exception that they were far better at empire.



The number of wars a nation fights does not determine the status of empire.


The number of nations it fights, defeats, and controls determines empire. We are still in Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... We still fight in the Philipines, South America, and Africa. We simply refuse to take control and run it like an empire should be run. Instead we claim to allow them to rule themselves, then muck about in their business for the next 100 years or so. Empire it is.



We do no occupy nor do we dictate to other countries. Dictate meaning they must follow our orders. We do not rape and pillage other nations. You speak metaphorically. Empire has its definition. Try as you might to distort it, it is what it is.


Do some research on our behavior and patterns of control over other nations and their behavior patterns. Dictating things to other countries can be done with money as easily as weapons. We rape and pillage their resources all the time through American megacorps. Nothing metaphorical about it.

Vince, you understanding of the American Indian is very weak by the way. Two words, Huron Nation.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:13 am

Iroquois Nation. Cherokee Nation.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:55 am

assateague wrote:Iroquois Nation. Cherokee Nation.


Exactly. They were nations made up of tribal unions, and the different Indian nations did war with each other over territory.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:08 am

assateague wrote:No it wasn't. The Confederacy did not try and overthrow the US government.

This. If the CSA had won the war it would be taught that it was a revolutionary war or a war of independence, which is what it really was. Same as our revolution against the crown.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Whose Behind Multi Culturalism?

Postby vincentpa » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:34 am

clampdaddy wrote:
assateague wrote:No it wasn't. The Confederacy did not try and overthrow the US government.

This. If the CSA had won the war it would be taught that it was a revolutionary war or a war of independence, which is what it really was. Same as our revolution against the crown.



Our Revolution was every bit a civil war too. The overarching war was the Revolution over the Crown but, we also fought each other making it a civil war within a greater conflict.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests