Two Non-Multi-Cult Stories, or Mixing it Up and Making It

[dre]

And the Europeans were of African descent if that be your game. hence, America culture ultimately comes from..Africa. Now lets just move on.

Which again has no bearing on whether or not his statement was true or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which again has no bearing on whether or not his statement was true or not.

The statement was not true...American culture has many sources, including but not limited to Europe.

[Evening Star]

The statement was not true...American culture has many sources, including but not limited to Europe.

Yes, absolutely, and it has had many sources for as long as there has been a United States. People of (more direct) African descent were a presence in the colonies more than a century before Independence, for one thing, and no sensible person would dispute the significance of African-American contributions to what we think of as "American culture". I don't see any error in bush_cheney's response.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Dissenter]

No....this is patently false. The American experience (and culture) is far more complex than your narrow focus on "people of European descent". In many respects, the Americans rejected the culture of Europe.

So focusing on 90% of the population, up until the 1960s, is narrow?

[dre]

The statement was not true...American culture has many sources, including but not limited to Europe.

Whether the statement is true or not both your arguments were non-sequiturs.

[bush_cheney2004]

So focusing on 90% of the population, up until the 1960s, is narrow?

Yes...your population stats and timeframe are incomplete and biased for an obvious agenda. Sorry, but America was never as "white" as you wish it had been.

[Evening Star]

So focusing on 90% of the population, up until the 1960s, is narrow?

I dunno, that 90% figure sounds questionable to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics

--

(xpost)

Edited July 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[bush_cheney2004]

Whether the statement is true or not both your arguments were non-sequiturs.

Now that always sounds intelligent on a web forum...true or not!

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, absolutely, and it has had many sources for as long as there has been a United States. People of (more direct) African descent were a presence in the colonies more than a century before Independence, for one thing, and no sensible person would dispute the significance of African-American contributions to what we think of as "American culture". I don't see any error in bush_cheney's response.

Agreed.

[August1991]

The statement was not true...American culture has many sources, including but not limited to Europe.

I have to agree. Even at the time of the American revolution, it is clear in the writings of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin while in Europe that they felt different. This difference has accelerated through time. When de Tocqueville wrote about America in the 19th century, he is describing a distinctly different society than France.

But putting "Europe" into a single category is absurd. The people of Switzerland and Finland, to pick two examples, have had markedly different histories than, say, people of Bulgaria and Albania.

----

I'm with BC on this. If you want to say that Americans are European in origin, then you might as well say that Europeans are African in origin.

Human DNA, for all intents, is close to identical between individuals and has not changed much in recent time. As I have argued here before, if you took a baby from 50,000 years ago, brought it to the present and put it into a typical modern family, it would grow up to be just another kid playing video games.

The big difference between us is education. IOW, our differences are cultural not racial and American society is great proof of this.

[kimmy]

This thread has the potential to go sour. Be wary of being provoked into an argument with someone who isn't worth arguing with.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for all the love...bruthas and sistas!

We can argue about such things of course, but methinks this topic is/was headed for a nasty place with a "lily white America" enlisted as an ally for a darker agenda (pun intended).

Edited July 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

I'm with BC on this. If you want to say that Americans are European in origin, then you might as well say that Europeans are African in origin.

Yeah. American culture is as much African as it is European

[Evening Star]

Yeah. American culture is as much African as it is European

See, now you're talking about culture rather than descent. And here, I think the arguments made by b_c, August, and yours truly become rather relevant.

[Evening Star]

(Seriously, dre, is Dissenter's argument the one you want to be defending?)

[dre]

(Seriously, dre, is Dissenter's argument the one you want to be defending?)

I wasnt defending his argument. I just said BC didnt read it before he replied to it.

As for the argument itself I CAN defend it if you want. I dont see it as being even contraversial that the US is predominantly based on European culture (and technology, and government, and law, and religion) I see European technology both in Americans early agrarian and industrial economies. I see a legal system based on British Commonlaw (as opposed to African tribal law). I see German Americans ,Irish Americans ,English Americans ,Italian Americans, British Americans (English, Scottish and Welsh) make up almost 65% of the population TODAY, and the percentage used to be much higher. I find very little evidence of anyone besides Europeans being a big part of the decision making process or the political system until the last 50 or 100 years.

Then I look at how people live in the US and Europe today, and how people live in Africa (2 of them match up very closely and the other doesnt even come close. I see very little African technology, very little African Architecture, very little in the way of African religion.

Africa and the US couldnt be more different where as American and most of Europe are very very similar.

Thats not to say that other groups didnt play a part in shaping American culture, but those influences are nowhere NEAR as prevailent as the influence of western europe.

But its ok that you guys disagree with me. There wouldnt be much point in posting if we all said that same thing.

Edited July 18, 2011 by dre

[Shwa]

It's not hyperbole at all.

There are three problems with your argument.

The US is projected to have a white minority by 2042, Canada around the same time and the UK by 2066.

Skin colour has nothing to do with culture. And cultures change over time.

Our culture is predominantly European.

America's culture is predominantly American which has influences from various sources. (eg. Are you saying Jazz is a predominantly European musical form? How about the cotton gin - is that a predominantly European invention? etc.)

If the Chinese founded Canada and the US, do you think they'd be the same countries?

Non-sequitur red herring. "Chinese founded Canada" is a fantasy and has no bearing on anything unless you are one of those alter-history types.

[eyeball]

I have a question. How multi-culturally tolerant is Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and the like? Maybe they should be asked "(w)hat part of do unto others yadda yadda didn't sink in anyway?"

Maybe they should be, but who cares, our asking people to be tolerant of other's cultures not countries is the issue here - in any case it seems to me that should include not making such a big deal out of the importance our own.

[g_bambino]

Maybe they should be, but who cares, our asking people to be tolerant of other's cultures not countries is the issue here - in any case it seems to me that should include not making such a big deal out of the importance our own.

What exactly does that even mean? It could be interpreted as expressing the opinion that no Westerner should criticise any aspect of a foreign culture so as to not imply that Western culture is better. I hope that reading is incorrect.

[eyeball]

What exactly does that even mean? It could be interpreted as expressing the opinion that no Westerner should criticise any aspect of a foreign culture so as to not imply that Western culture is better. I hope that reading is incorrect.

It is incorrect. I'm simply saying that when preaching tolerance for other cultures you might want to display a little temperance towards your own - you know, to be taken seriously and all.

In the meantime, I think that men who can't control themselves at the sight of a woman's body should wear blinders. You'd be just as incorrect to interpret that as a cultural critique too.

[Michael Hardner]

If the Chinese founded Canada and the US, do you think they'd be the same countries?

It's an interesting question. Canada and the US were founded at about the same time, in an environment that already had to include diversity, since there were different foreign peoples, different religions, and different classes of people working together within the same environment.

We were already founded in diversity, in my opinion, and the success of the approach to that reality is what continues today.

[Shwa]

It is incorrect. I'm simply saying that when preaching tolerance for other cultures you might want to display a little temperance towards your own - you know, to be taken seriously and all.

Why? Would we better off without hard, biting and unrelentless criticism of our own culture? In other words, why should we display any temperance towards our own culture at all?

Because some people are oversensitive and mistake rational criticism as some bizarre admittance of weakness, inferiority or self-hatred? Pffff...

The people taken most seriously are those than can provide rational criticism and that criticism is usually input into cultural or societal change. If you don't believe me, read some any history books.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

In many respects, the Americans rejected the culture of Europe.

Quite true, and this is the essence of why Canada always will be more similar to the US than, say, England. Our lands were founded as an invitation to prosperity and building - there was no other way to attract people to move there. Once arrived, European immigrants learned that they had to do things themselves and not rely on the King to do it for them.

[g_bambino]

It is incorrect. I'm simply saying that when preaching tolerance for other cultures you might want to display a little temperance towards your own - you know, to be taken seriously and all.

Fine; self-reflection and criticism can be healthy. But, then, freedom of expression - including critique of one's own culture around them - has long been a part of our culture, unlike some others.

[g_bambino]

Once arrived, European immigrants learned that they had to do things themselves and not rely on the King to do it for them.

That's partly - perhaps mostly - true, but not entirely. There was much that was supplied by "the Kings" (i.e. the British and French governments) that aided the colonists - institutions of government, armies and navies, currency, markets, & etc.