British Royal/Celebrity Wedding

[Guest American Woman]

Your ecomonic status (I beleive) determines your social status.

So one has control over it. One is not preordained to be in one class over the other because of their ancestry. There is no social class system in the U.S. comparable to the social class system in Britain, just as I said. There is no class of people preordained to be "commoners" or any similar class thereof.

[Black Dog]

And one is preordained by their ancestry to these classes? And will remain in that class, as will their children, because of their ancestry?

One should not need to point out the obvious difference between economic classes, which one is not preordained to and one has control over, and social classes determined solely by ancestry, which one does not have control over. Kate is a "commoner" and that is that. Based on her ancestry. I'll ask again. What class in the US is comparable to that?

So because the class distinctions in the U.S. are economic, rather than systemic, that's better?

[Guest American Woman]

So because the class distinctions in the U.S. are economic, rather than systemic, that's better?

Because the class distinctions in the U.S. are not fixed, that is better. Because one has control over it, that is better. Because one is not preordained to be in a specific class that is better. Because one is not perceived as born superior or inferior based on their ancestry, that is better. Because all people are born equal, that is better.

Edited May 2, 2011 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

So one has control over it. One is not preordained to be in one class over the other because of their ancestry. There is no social class system in the U.S. comparable to the social class system in Britain, just as I said. There is no class of people preordained to be "commoners" or any similar class thereof.

Whoever said there were? The distinctions between classes aren't formalized and codified, but that does not mean they do not exist.

[Black Dog]

Because the class distinctions in the U.S. are not fixed, that is better. Because one has control over it, that is better. Because one is not preordained to be in a specific class that is better. Because one is not perceived as born superior or inferior based on their ancestry, that is better. Because all people are born equal, that is better.

You're grossly overstating the degree of social mobility in your country. The reality for the vast majority of Americans is the economic and social class (one follows the other) you are born into is the same one you will die in. they are fixed, you just pretend they aren't.

[Bob]

Oh, please. Of course it's more complicated than either you or I can get into in a post on a message forum. But, even from my simplified summary, it's a huge stretch to claim I even insinuated the US is a "racist country". In fact, it's quite evident from my inclusion of the words "parts of" that I wasn't talking about the country in its entirety; as though slavery or segregation were still an official policy. That said, I don't think it's too outrageous to point out that there are obvious links between race and ethnicity and education and success. It's also verifiable that there is a not insignificant number of Americans who don't hide their displeasure with the fact that the current president has attained a position and stature above what a person of his particular shade of skin colour should.

But, we're deviating from the point, which is that, contrary to AW's assertions, the US is not free from class heirarchy and divisions, despite being a republic. It would seem, at least, that you don't disagree with that.

[+]

The other side of that coin is that black voter turnout was at record levels in the 2008 election, with some 95%+ of this vote going to Obama. Do you describe that as racism or prejudice? Any amount of people upset with Obama's race must be marginal or fringe given American culture's exceptional pluralism and diversity. America is no more prejudice than any other country... indeed, I'm quite certain that America is probably the least prejudiced country in the world, if only there was a good way of quantifying it.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Bob

[Guest American Woman]

Whoever said there were? The distinctions between classes aren't formalized and codified, but that does not mean they do not exist.

They are fixed in Britain, hence my comments. People are what they are by birth. They are preordained to the class they are born in, based solely on their ancestry. That kind of social class does not exist in the U.S. All are born equal. Some are not born into the "royal" class while others are born into the "commoner" class, where they shall remain. Based solely on their ansestry. If you can't see the difference, if you don't care whether or not you have control over which class you are in, so be it. I repeat. I am glad we don't have such a system.

[Guest American Woman]

You're grossly overstating the degree of social mobility in your country. The reality for the vast majority of Americans is the economic and social class (one follows the other) you are born into is the same one you will die in. they are fixed, you just pretend they aren't.

You're grossly underestimating it. But that's ok because it doesn't matter whether you understand it or not, we still don't have a preordained social class system in the United States.

[WIP]

You're grossly overstating the degree of social mobility in your country. The reality for the vast majority of Americans is the economic and social class (one follows the other) you are born into is the same one you will die in. they are fixed, you just pretend they aren't.

Right! The real story is that rising disparity in incomes and the gutting of public education and cost of health care have made America one of the lowest ranking OECD countries regarding social mobility. England isn't much better, and Canada is getting worse thanks to following supply side economic policies of cutting corporate taxes and high end personal income taxes, while raising college and university tuition fees.

[g_bambino]

America is no more prejudice than any other country...

I never said otherwise.

[sp]

Edited May 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

They are fixed in Britain, hence my comments. People are what they are by birth. They are preordained to the class they are born in, based solely on their ancestry. That kind of social class does not exist in the U.S. All are born equal.

A distinction without a difference.

Some are not born into the "royal" class while others are born into the "commoner" class, where they shall remain. Based solely on their ansestry.

Yeah, the U.S. has nothing like that where people born into certain families with certain last names are accorded certain privileges and benefits. No siree.

If you can't see the difference, if you don't care whether or not you have control over which class you are in, so be it. I repeat. I am glad we don't have such a system.

Why? Your system isn't that shit hot.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

A distinction without a difference.

Of course there's a difference. Seriously. Because you don't get it doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.

Yeah, the U.S. has nothing like that where people born into certain families with certain last names are accorded certain privileges and benefits. No siree.

Good Lord. That's not systematic of a fixed social system. They don't have a social standing based on nothing but blood lines. If they fail and lose all of their money, they lose that standing. No one gives a crap what their last name is, unlike a penniless Duke who is still a Duke or a Duchess who is still a Duchess regardless of their downfall, and they are still in the social circles simply because of it, or a commoner who is still a commoner no matter how much he/she achieves. There is no such social class distinction in the United States. Are you getting it yet?

Why? Your system isn't that shit hot.

So that's what this is all about. Yep. the United States sucks. Got it. Of course a system where one's accomplishments are what matters isn't better than a social class system determined by nothing other than blood lines. Got'cha. again. And again. And again....................

Edited May 2, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

A distinction without a difference.

AW is overplaying the distinction between nobility and commoners in the UK. This is, I suspect, because she doesn't understand it. Everyone is a commoner unless they are the sovereign or a peer, and almost never does anyone become either at birth. So, 99.99% of people in Britain were all born commoners; even the present Queen was of that rank until the moment she acceded to the throne. Prince William was a commoner until he was made a duke upon his marriage.

Still, in practical terms, economic and political status matters more than a place in the peerage. In fact, most peerages were, and continue to be, granted to successful businesspeople and to politicians. For them and those that inherited their title (the minority), the possession in itself doesn't guarantee high social standing, and no inherent privileges. Some are economically middle class; many earn a living at a job or run their own businesses. All, including the Queen herself, are equal before the law.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So that's what this is all about. Yep. the United States sucks. Got it. Of course a system where one's accomplishments are what matters isn't better than a social class system determined by nothing other than blood lines. Got'cha. again. And again. And again....................

I welcome such royal disdain, for it is at the core of why the Americans violently rejected the notion of kings and queens perpetuated by selective breeding. The American mongrels have preserved a token memory of royal standing in the form of an international fast food restaurant franchise....Burger King. Free crowns are available for the kiddies.

[Guest American Woman]

AW is overplaying the distinction between nobility and commoners in the UK. ......

AW thinks it's so amusing how you read everything AW says and respond to everything AW says but do it by talking about her rather than responding to her to make it appear as if you really don't care what AW thinks or has to say -- while obviously caring very much. AW just want you to know that.

But no, AW isn't overplaying anything and totally understands it. AW just doesn't care for it much and is glad no such system exists in her country.

[Bob]

I get the impression that some folks think that the only reason people fail or underachieve in life is because of social obstacles that the government can and should remove. You know, in a free country, people will underperform - people will be unemployed, people will drop out of school, people will become addicted to drugs, and people will blame external factors for their own shortcomings.

[Guest American Woman]

I welcome such royal disdain, for it is at the core of why the Americans violently rejected the notion of kings and queens perpetuated by selective breeding.

Exactly. This is at the very core of 'all men are created equal' and 'anyone can grow up to be President.'

[Black Dog]

Of course there's a difference. Seriously. Because you don't get it doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.

Explain the practical difference then. What difference does it actually make? What rights and privileges are afforded to peers of the realm that others do not have?

Good Lord. That's not systematic of a fixed social system. They don't have a social standing based on nothing but blood lines. If they fail and lose all of their money, they lose that standing. No one gives a crap what their last name is, unlike a penniless Duke who is still a Duke or a Duchess who is still a Duchess regardless of their downfall, and they are still in the social circles simply because of it, or a commoner who is still a commoner no matter how much he/she achieves. There is no such social class distinction in the United States. Are you getting it yet?

Sure I get it. Don't know why it matters. As I said: the fact that most Americans will die in the same socio-economic strata they were born into should be of far greater concern than the mostly meaningless titles of the peerage system.

So that's what this is all about. Yep. the United States sucks. Got it. Of course a system where one's accomplishments are what matters isn't better than a social class system determined by nothing other than blood lines. Got'cha. again. And again. And again....................

I'm afraid you are deluding yourself if you genuinely believe that.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

Don't know why it matters.

And therein lies the difference; I do know why it matters.

[Black Dog]

And therein lies the difference; I do know why it matters.

I know why it matters to you: it allows you to bask in the smug waters of unearned self-righteousness. In the real world, it matters not a jot.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

I know why it matters to you: it allows you to bask in the smug waters of unearned self-righteousness. In the real world, it matters not a jot.

Yes, that's it. I'm basking in all that because I don't agree with a social class system that revolves around royalty and bloodlines. But for the record, I don't base what matters in the real world on your opinion.

[Black Dog]

Yes, that's it. I'm basking in all that because I don't agree with a social class system that revolves around royalty and bloodlines.

No, instead you agree with one that revolves around equally arbitrary criteria like race and the economic status of your parents.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

No, instead you agree with one that revolves around equally arbitrary criteria like race and the economic status of your parents.

Yes, because we all know that all Americans remain within the "economic status" of their parents. Same with race. Everyone from the same race is in the same "class."

Good Lord. I can't believe you're as ignorant as you are sounding here.

[Black Dog]

Yes, because we all know that all Americans remain within the "economic status" of their parents.

Most do.

Same with race. Everyone from the same race is in the same "class."

Mostly, yeah.

Good Lord. I can't believe you're as ignorant as you are sounding here.

And I can't believe you-indeed, anyone- can be as naive as you.

[jbg]

Are you going to deny that some people don't do this? And some people didn't do this when it happened?

Are you that naive?

I know that some people don't pay taxes. I know some drip with contempt towards common people. Please don't attribute it to Judaism unless you can show me some tenets of Judaism that point in that direction.