E Pluribus. Unum

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by dexters


The problem of course all the examples presented above were small scale democracies
Oh yes, and America did show the way. It not only contributed directly to the French Revolution it destroyed the stranglehold of European powers around the world as their colonies began in earnest independence movements. America was the first of the European colonies to declare independence.

English multiculutralism was a result of Empire. North American diversity is the result of an idea that all people can build a country.

This is terribly amusing; many people can build America. Unfortunately at the expense of the original inhabitants, with the aid of a slave population, and by invading Mexico and taking over Spain's colonies in Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, etc...and buying land tracts from France, Spain and Russia. All very lily-white and democratic. As for contributing to the French Revolution...

'So much of modern statism -- with all of its horror and disregard for individualism -- began with the French Revolution. The "purge," the "commune," the color red as a symbol of statism, even the political terms Left, Right, and Center came to us from this period. The only thing that ended the carnage -- inside France, at least -- was "a man on horseback," Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Revolution had brought forth first anarchy, then statism, and finally, dictatorship. Had it not been for the indomitable spirit of the average Frenchman and France's position as the largest country in Europe, France might never have recovered.

Now contrast all of this with the American Revolution -- more correctly called the War for Independence. The American Revolution was different because, as Irving Kristol has pointed out, it was "a mild and relatively bloodless revolution. A war was fought to be sure, and soldiers died in that war. But . . . there was none of the butchery which we have come to accept as a natural concomitant of revolutionary warfare. . . . There was no 'revolutionary justice'; there was no reign of terror; there were no bloodthirsty proclamations by the Continental Congress."

The American Revolution was essentially a "conservative" movement, fought to conserve the freedoms America had painstakingly developed since the 1620s during the period of British "salutary neglect" -- in reality, a period of laissezfaire government as far as the colonies were concerned. Samuel Eliot Morison has pointed out: "[T]he American Revolution was not fought to obtain freedom, but to preserve the liberties that Americans already had as colonials. Independence was no conscious goal, secretly nurtured in cellar or jungle by bearded conspirators, but a reluctant last resort, to preserve 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

The difference between statistics and lived experience:

"In economic wealth and power and influence, Afro-Americans have more than we do here," said Middlesex University's Young. "There are a lot of similarities in our two communities, in terms of racism and alienation, but differences also. We are less segregated socially in Britain than Afro-Americans are in the U.S.
In the U.S., blacks and whites may work together, but at the end of the day, they go to their different spaces. That is not so much true here."
Brixton is one example of that. It may be Britain's Harlem, but a sizeable number of whites live there.

https://www.freepress.com/news/nw/ebrits11_20000211.htm

[KrazyHorse]

We do A recent poll showed 80% of Canadians wouldn't mind joining the United States.

Uh-huh. I'm gonna call for a source on that, because it runs contrary to almost all other studies I've seen done, which usually give the predominant opinion that Canadians feel as though they are already undergoing too much cultural assimilation.

[molly bloom]

Good enough to die for White America, but not eat with it:

Innumerable accounts report the difficulties experienced by black military personnel with segregation on the Jim Crow Railroad System, even when they were traveling under government orders. Station restaurants often refused them service leaving them hungry for hours. Most galling was the denial of the facilities and hospitality that were extended to German prisoners of war. In March 1945, the crisis declared: "Nothing so lowers Negro morale as the frequent preferential treatment of Axis prisoners of war in contrast with deprecatory Army policy towards American troops who happened to be Negro."

On one occasion, a group of German prisoners of war traveling under guard to the West Coast ate with the white passengers in the main section of the dining car, but the black soldiers assigned to guard them were fed behind a curtain at the far end of the car. The poet Wittner Bynner recorded the incident in the following rhyme:

On a train in Texas
German prisoners eat
with white American soldiers,
seat by seat

While black American soldiers
sit apart ...
The white men eating meat,
the black men - heart.

[dexters]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Uh-huh. I'm gonna call for a source on that, because it runs contrary to almost all other studies I've seen done, which usually give the predominant opinion that Canadians feel as though they are already undergoing too much cultural assimilation.

wELL, they are not mutually exclusive. Feeling too much cultural assimilation is not the same question as wanting to be part of the United States.

[dexters]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Good enough to die for White America, but not eat with it:

Innumerable accounts report the difficulties experienced by black military personnel with segregation on the Jim Crow Railroad System, even when they were traveling under government....

Well, I appreciate you changing the subject from that of the North American sentiment of creating a nation out of many to that of discrimination.

But fair enough. The discussion certainly wasn't about racism, and I don't think I've claimed the United States or Canada is a racism free zone. The issue of discrimination, whether it be race, gender, age, handicap, disease (even see how a person with HIV is treated in public?) is an issue all societies will have to grapple with in one form or another. Some societies, especially the small homogeneous countries in Europe and several nations in Asia do not have to deal with this problem, other societies, like Canada and the United States built on the idealism E pluribus unum so eloquently describes grapple with it far more frequently and explosively. But we deal with it publicly. And we deal with it even if it is embarassing to our governments.

But it is somewhat ironic that an Australian is pointing out the issue of racism. Accounts from the Asian press have painted Australia as a country hostile to foreigners, especially Asians.

Oh well, at least in 20 years, we can be sure to beat you in Math and Science.

[d_dudy]

haven't australians always been nice to the aborigines(sp?) there?


just a question.....

[dexters]

Originally posted by molly bloom


This is terribly amusing; many people can build America. Unfortunately at the expense of the original inhabitants, with the aid of a slave population, and by invading Mexico and taking over Spain's colonies in Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, etc...and buying land tracts from France, Spain and Russia. All very lily-white and democratic. As for contributing to the French Revolution...

Spain, France and Russia sold the tracks of land, brigning it up proves nothing. It's like a bitter old hack griping about lost opportunities.

Taking over Spain's colonies is again a pointless subject. The people of the Philippines were already in open revolt and fighting Spain for centuries when the Americans arrived and promptly began a process of independence before the Japanese invaded in World War II. Puerto Rice and Guam are certainly better off under the Americans than under the declining Spaniards which did not have the resources to build up both territories' infrastructure.

'So much of modern statism -- with all of its horror and disregard for individualism -- began with the French Revolution. The "purge," the "commune," the color red as a symbol of statism, even the political terms Left, Right, and Center came to us from this period. The only thing that ended the carnage -- inside France, at least -- was "a man on horseback," Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Revolution had brought forth first anarchy, then statism, and finally, dictatorship. Had it not been for the indomitable spirit of the average Frenchman and France's position as the largest country in Europe, France might never have recovered.

And ironically without the French Revolution there may not be a Napoleon. I'm sure any good Frechman would very much rather have Napoleon than not have him at all. But that's pointless. The failure of the French Revolution was the failure of the French, burdened by a history of rule under the monarchy to establish a Republic. I merely commented the American Revolution inspired France to overthrow their king and from the chaos Napoleon emerged, someone many people in France still consider to be a great national hero. I made no value judgement on whether its good or bad, if you choose to quote someone else's opinion, that's fine with me. That's not the issue however.

Now contrast all of this with the American Revolution -- more correctly called the War for Independence. The American Revolution was different because, as Irving Kristol has pointed out, it was "a mild and relatively bloodless revolution. A war was fought to be sure, and soldiers died in that war. But . . . there was none of the butchery which we have come to accept as a natural concomitant of revolutionary warfare. . . . There was no 'revolutionary justice'; there was no reign of terror; there were no bloodthirsty proclamations by the Continental Congress."

That's just assanine. Revolution by its very definition simply means radical change and its literal interpretation means to turn. There is no pre-requisite need for violent overthrow and massacres to classify as a revolution.

The American Revolution was essentially a "conservative" movement, fought to conserve the freedoms America had painstakingly developed since the 1620s during the period of British "salutary neglect" -- in reality, a period of laissezfaire government as far as the colonies were concerned. Samuel Eliot Morison has pointed out: "[T]he American Revolution was not fought to obtain freedom, but to preserve the liberties that Americans already had as colonials. Independence was no conscious goal, secretly nurtured in cellar or jungle by bearded conspirators, but a reluctant last resort, to preserve 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

That is correct.

The difference between statistics and lived experience:

"In economic wealth and power and influence, Afro-Americans have more than we do here," said Middlesex University's Young. "There are a lot of similarities in our two communities, in terms of racism and alienation, but differences also. We are less segregated socially in Britain than Afro-Americans are in the U.S.
In the U.S., blacks and whites may work together, but at the end of the day, they go to their different spaces. That is not so much true here."
Brixton is one example of that. It may be Britain's Harlem, but a sizeable number of whites live there.

The problem of course when you do these kinds of comparisons is that the UK aka Britain is like a state in a vast continent that is Europe. America is a superstate amalgamated into one nation. When the American Revolution was completed there was infact no certainty that the 13 colonies would amalgamate to form a union, and France, always practical, had prepared to send thirteen ambassadors as they expected to deal with thirteen squabbling nations.

In anycase, racism is always an issue. In Canada, there are claims that we are less racist than those Americans, but in fact, investigations have shown that in Canada racism is infact alive and well and instead of being shown overtly as in many southern American states, it is manifested in less obvious forms, thus nullifying part of the claim that Canadians are absolutely less racist and i suspect the same is true in Britian. It has been called polite racism, and believe me, being told politely and perhaps in not so obvious ways that you should go back home is the same has being yelled at. The psychological impact is the same. Racism is racism. The current imperfect measures are such that it gives certain countries known to practice politce racism (Japan, Canada, UK) a better looking racism sheet, but the Xenophobia in a country like Japan is intense, despite their open embrase and infatuation with westerners, foreigners are still called Gaijin. And inter-racial marriages are frowned upon. This is true for many Asian nations as well.

The problem with the kind of interpretation that claims success just because people of color are intermixing and living together is misleading. It only tells us people live in mixed neighborhoods. I know for a fact that even in mixed neighborhoods racism occur by mental segregation when people don't do things together. In mixed schools, kids of the same race play together and is apparent in the heavily Asian and East-Indian school districts in
Canada.

Mixing is not a sign of success, and to claim it is, is just being naive.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by dexters


Spain, France and Russia sold the tracks of land, brigning it up proves nothing. It's like a bitter old hack griping about lost opportunities.

Taking over Spain's colonies is again a pointless subject. The people of the Philippines were already in open revolt and fighting Spain for centuries ....

I can't believe how willing to whitewash American history you are in order to prove your point. America's treatment of its newly acquired inhabitants is irrelevant?

'In the early days of its existence, the fledgling United States government carried out a policy of displacement and extermination against the American Indians in the eastern US, systematically removing them from the path of "white" settlement. Until 1821, Florida remained under the control of the government of Spain but the US Territories of Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana were its covetous next-door neighbors. It was clear that the US wanted the Spaniards out of Florida and was willing to consider any means, including warfare, to acquire the rich land. '

https://www.seminoletribe.com/

The Philippines:

'When the treaty was sent to the Senate for approval, anti-imperialist elements offered some opposition, but on 6 February 1899 the Senate accepted it by a vote of 57 to 27, only two more than the necessary two-thirds majority. Fatefully, two days before the vote, armed hostilities broke out at Manila between the American garrison and Aguinaldo's troops, the beginning of a struggle that lasted until July 1902. Although Cuba received its independence, the Platt Amendment (1902) severely limited its sovereignty and stimulated a dependent relationship that affected the evolution of Cuban society. This dependency leads some historians to maintain that the events of 1895-1898 were simply a transition (la transición) from Spanish imperialism to American imperialism. '

"The resistance to the United States in 1899 should not be belittled by the term "Philippine Insurrection." It was more than an insurrection -it was a legitimate war of protest, waged under capable and idealistic Filipino leaders. Mabini summed up the Filipino aims of 1899. He was a great Filipino statesman, and his words reflect his greatness:
"The Filipinos realize that they can expect no victory over the American forces; they are fighting to show the American people that they are sufficiently intelligent to know their rights...the Filipinos maintain their fight against American troops, not from any special hatred, but in order to show the American people that they are far from indifferent to their political situation..."
Victor Hurley, Jungle Patrol: The Story of the Philippine Constabulary, page 24.

One war, two perspectives.

As for racism...

1776 -- Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Just not black men , Native Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, etc....

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by dexters
The only problem is, you'll have to find room for 13 new stars on your flag. As Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories.

No problem, just add a white or red maple leaf to each red or white stripe.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

MollyBloom, you seem to be Ribannah under a DL... The topics you toss out seem more to rile other posters than to actually make a point; each is laden with famous quotes or internet links that only tenuously address the topic at hand. To address some of what you've said,

Racism is a prominent theme in US social history, from the first arrival of europeans thru the present day. Few people deny it, really. As any society, americans are a dynamic bunch who slowly come to terms with what is wrong and try collectively to deal with it in new ways. What is your point? Really, I don't see what you are trying to express. Yes, this and every other society has its problems and issues. People who claim the US is lily-white and pure in its history are just uninformed numbskulls - people who can't accept that they can be proud of their nation despite it having some glaring negative sides. This is not unique to the US, by any means.

The US bullied european nations out of territories it coveted, it mercilessly slaughtered the indians living there if they wouldn't pack up and leave to unknown lands. Not too different than other countries' tactics throughout history, really. How about Australia's fine treatment of the aboriginies? (<- d_dudy, this is because they did an equally horrific job in Australia) Yes, US civics classes gloss over the bad parts and teach our youth the whitewashed version. Only on their own (if they don't already know from experience) do they learn what the "other" side of the story is. It is more a lesson in propoganda than history. But again, what's your point? How is this different than any other nations' behavior?

Everybody is quick to pat himself on the back and bash the americans for their wrongs. The US has clearly asserted itself internationally at the expense of others, only resentment can follow. But that is a political agenda, not a societal one. The US is also a source of large amounts of aid and assistance (not just $).

I am proud to be an american. I could list a zillion bad things this country has done, but it doesn't take away from the equally long list of good things. All societies have good and bad qualities, ours is not unique in that respect.

[dexters]

Marquis de Sodaq, its not even that. What I is a truly great injustice perpetrated by some people are essentially rigged comparisons between the United States and (insert homeland here)

For example, outside a select few countries like the UK, most European countries get a free ride on defense by virtue of US military expenditures and its NATO alliance. The billions, and trillions saved over the last fifty years have gone into other "social" spending programs and then they turn around to make all sorts of innacurate comparisons about the "broken" American system versus their more perfect systems.

Given the realities of the cold war, I doubt many of those countries would be even around had the US not stepped up and provided what is essentially free defense as they would either have been assimilated as a Soviet Satellite or their economies crushed by the cost of defense. Even if various nations came together to collectively create a defense unit in Europe, the expense would still far exceed what they spent with the Americans in Europe. When you consider American military spending, (at its peak in the 80s) was 3 to 400 billion dollars per annum, it is no chump change. In current dollars, the figure would likely be in the 4 to 500 billion dollar range.

In anycase, this discussion has gone way off course. I merely posted a television ad I thought reflect what America is about, the idealism behind the American dream. But again, it has turned into another American bashing thread headed by so called foreign allies who have no grasp of the benefits they receive from the Pax Americana we live in. Hindisight is 20/20. Outside the small circles of left leaning anti-semetic and politically correct "blame everything on the Jews and Americans" Historians will likely view this period as one of the richest most properous period in world history.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
MollyBloom, you seem to be Ribannah under a DL... The topics you toss out seem more to rile other posters than to actually make a point; each is laden with famous quotes or internet links that only tenuously address the topic at hand.

Exactly how are links to a Filipino and Seminole view of American imperialism irrelevant? Dexters' propaganda for America seems to onsist of saying it's a wonderfully racially integrated society in opposition to all those wicked old world countries, who even if they have a sizeable immigrant population of differing ethnic origins only acquired it through base imperial means, in contrast to America's beneficent invitations to all and sundry to come and settle in the New World. The Filipino site points out that only America deems the resistance to American hegemony the 'Philippine Insurrection', and says that America was'helping' the Philippines achieve independence. That must have been reassuring for the dead Filipino rebels,who having rebelled against the Spanish were then killed by their former allies. That seems a curious way to liberate someone....

The Seminoles too...ever wonder why they inhabitant barren parts of Oklahoma and swamps in Florida? Nothing o do with America's Indian wars I suppose. Imperialism, simply because it happens on the same land mass, is no less imperialism than the British gunboat diplomacy of Palmerston's day.

It's all very well saying America was founded on these shining principles, but my point is, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were just pieces of paper, like the Munich Agreement, as far as America's indigenous and black populations were concerned.

As for dexters statistics regarding the ethnic complexity of Great Britain:

'English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%
Wow! 2.8% of the population is non White! great! truly diverse. '

Dexters seems to think you can't be English and black. Or Welsh and black. Or Scottish and black. I notice no source is given for these statistics either, like dexters somewhat dubious claim that 80% of Canadians favour integration with the U.S.

Dexters also seems never to have been to the U.K. judging by the constant droning reiteration of how homogenously white the country is. Having lived in Coventry, Manchester and London,and travelled extensively through Wales, England, Ireland and Scotland, I'm not sure which whitewashed parts are referenced. The cliffs of Dover, perhaps? I confess that on my first visit to Canada, in Vancouver, it was a few days before I realized what it was that was nagging at me....I couldn't figure out where all the black citizens were. Having grown up in multicultural multiethnic neighbourhoods, it had never occurred to me that a city could have so few black inhabitants. I notice as well that the statistics for Canada and America, loudly trumpeting how diverse they are in ethnic terms, don't address the issues of ghettoization. How many First Nations bands live on the reservation, how many Inuit in remote nearly all Inuit communities, how many African Americans are concentrated in certain areas? Where I last lived in East London mixed race couples were a norm, not a rarity, and as Trevor Young, the black British broadcaster I quoted pointed out, British culture today is a potent mix of influences reflected in the likes of recent Turner prize winners, British music like Portishead and Massive Attack and Sheila Chandra, and leading British writers. I could of course also point out that France's modern culture is also formed from diverse ethnic groups, North African, West African, Caribbean...but then, I suspect dexters hasn't been to France either.
As for the oh so pointed references to 'Aborigines'....well as a recently landed immigrant, I confess to feeling no guilt over that issue. On the other hand, at least the Australians concocted the legal fiction of 'terra nullius' as a thin blanket for their shame. I believe America used the Monroe Doctrine as a carte blanche for interfering in Central and South American and Caribbean politics, and Manifest Destiny to justify the dispossession of Native Americans. Any real difference?

[orange]

erm, this is still on Civ 3 forums?

Moderators asleep at the post

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by orange
erm, this is still on Civ 3 forums?

Moderators asleep at the post

i can't believe viceroy ming closed that other thread (which i thought was pretty legitimate, because i've never seen that question addressed and i'm here a good deal) but didn't move this to the OT.


case closed, hardly

[nationalist]

Originally posted by El Awrence


Watch out for the upcoming ads...

"Evil Eurocom"- depicts the economic power of the EU and how they control the world economy. Aimed at creating anger against the EU.

"Dirty Mexicans"- depicts Mexicans robbing and raping beautiful and pure Texan women. Aimed at encouraging Texan oil tycoons to take up their shotgun and hunt down those evil sonsofb!itches who want to poison their bodily fluids!

Yeah, lets also watch clips of French or Germans rioting in the streets because they don't want their nation to be absorbed into the an faceless entity! Or how about watching a South American country picked at random slip back into an authoritarian regime because they just can't quite get the hang or representative government?? Or maybe we can just look at the constant warring and genocide that runs rampant throughout the southern hemisphere because the people don't know how to govern themselves? Or, my personal favorite, lets watch a weak country like Spain, backed by an ungrateful EU, try to tell the Americans what we can or cannot do with criminals! Europeans are so quick to forget that without American intervention what is now the EU would be either Fascist, Communist, or (without trillions of dollars of U.S. investment starting with the Marshall plan) a bankrupt, powerless, war torn continant! God its fun bashing America! I only wish that I could live in a country as great as Argentina! Seriously though, I think that the world should step back and ask reflect on just how much the world depends on the U.S. This may not be a proper forum to discuss matters such as this, but I am tired of reading the anti-American filth spread through this site. Especially from Canada! When Quebec seceeds, the remaining Provinces will be begging to become states sso they don't have to pay for their socialist health care system without the tax dollars from their 2 biggest cities. You Canuks should start learning the Star Spangled Banner! Enough ranting...