 |
| |
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
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. |
Molly, you can't be English and Black. Or at least you can't be ethnically English and be black. The English, along with Welsh, Irish, Scottish, etc. are different Nationalities. To belong to a nationality, you have to share the same race, along with language, and culture. (This fact is where classical Nationalsim derives its idea, that every nation should have its own state.) For example, there are no white Japanese. You can be a citizen of England regardless of skin color. But to be ethnically English ( which I assume is what these figure represent) you have to be white. By the way, I think that it is hillarious to see arguments about evil American Imperialism! Maybe you should check out a European history book from the library and read from 1492. That is where you'll find the worst instances of oppressive Imperalism. By the way, the BELGIANS ( of all people!) were probably the creulist Imperialists. If you don't believe me read a book on thie history of the Congo, or read Conrad's classic Heart of Darkness. AS for the segregation bullshit, you do not understand how America is today at all. My guess is that you visited tourist traps, which are in no way representative of America at all. Live in America for a year, especially in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, or anyre that is not New York, LA, San Fransisco, etc.. I guarantee that you'll be a flag waiving redneck ( thanks Dexter. Most Americans don't take redneck as an insult btw) just like the rest of us. That is where you'll learn what the U.S. is really like. Citizens of the heartland are not bad people, despite foreign belief. ( I think my innate goodness shows in the fact that I didn't make a single Australian joke in this post  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr. Nick
|
 |
Mola mazo!
Oct 2000
time: 01:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nationalist
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... |
It is made evident that nationalist wouldn't recognise a piece of sarcasm even if it hit him over the head. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Exactly how are links to a Filipino and Seminole view of American imperialism irrelevant? ...
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. |
Of course the american propoganda portrays itself as doing good. And of couse it's hooey. They were "helping" them transfer dependence from Spain to the US. I don't say your links and topics are irrelevant per se, but to the discussion. They provide absolutely nothing to separate the US from any other imperial power in history. The topic centered around the US getting lashed at by others for being bad or wrong in deed. For every example you bring up, an equal misdeed can be said of any other major power. In other words, it shows that singling out the US for criticism is just a matter of preference. If you don't like the US, fine. But to try to justify that dislike with anecdotes that might equally apply to your own land or heritage is silly.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
The Seminoles too...ever wonder why they inhabitant barren parts of Oklahoma and swamps in Florida? |
Believe me, I understand this far better than you. Just because I'm proud to be an american doesn't mean I'm white. (I fall into that lovely "mixed blood" category.) I could rant til I'm blue about the injustices suffered by all indians, from 1492 to the present day. Life goes on - the past is remembered, but I for one won't let it ruin my future.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
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, ... |
You made your point, and I almost agree with it. The DofI is not a racist, imperialist document. It's idealism and circumstance. The constitution contains the problematic ideas/language you refer to. But even it has been altered over the years and is now a far more encompassing and fair piece of paper.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
...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. |
Welcome to Canada, the great white north.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
...the statistics ... 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? |
I would bet my arm that the Inuit and Indians are quite happy to live apart from the whites. The rez is a crappy place to live, no doubt, but someof them are actually amenable places to traditional ways and self-government. As for the blacks, they started out in ghettos after they moved north following the civil war. They were kept there until only a generation or two ago. Now they struggle to move out to suburbia, just as the whites did a few decades ago. Integrated neighborhoods are spreading out from the traditional cores of black population, but it's a slow process.
One assumption people make about mixing ethnic groups is that it is good. The whole reason people gather with "their own kind" is for community. We all learn from others, but home is with those like you. Interaction with those from other communities is what is good, it isn't necessary for them to disperse among each other geographically. That can help, but isn't the only way.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
...Where I last lived in East London mixed race couples were a norm, not a rarity, |
Same here in Minneapolis, one of the whitest US metropolises. I think Vancouver probably just lacks the number of minorities for this to even be a possibility - someting Dexter pointed out himself.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
...British culture today is a potent mix of influences ... France's modern culture is also formed from diverse ethnic groups, North African, West African, Caribbean... |
And do you pretend to think US culture is not heavily influenced - for generations longer than Britain and France, by the way - by blacks/others?  Ever heard of Jazz? Maya Angelou? Blues or Rock and Roll? Alex Haley? Spike Lee? Even Eric Clapton and the Rolling Stones claim to be heavily influenced by american blacks. C'mon, what a joke to imply that euro societies are more multicultural! I've lived in europe, too (Netherlands). What I saw were societies only recently starting to mix. They gain the benefit of US racial/social history to skip much of the learning process. They gain from modern US cultural saturation (ok, not a benefit, but definitely an influence), too. Sure, they go thru it all on their own terms, but gain tremendously from US progress and mistakes. That is, they go into the mixing with far more understanding of what is really going on because of what New World societies have done wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
As for the oh so pointed references to 'Aborigines'....well as a recently landed immigrant, I confess to feeling no guilt over that issue. .... 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. [b]Any real difference? [b] |
No, and that was my entire point. You brought up the US misdeeds (you are right about the two policies' true purpose), I simply pointed out that the Aussies did an equally bad work. I'm glad you don't feel guilt about the Aborigine issue. Guilt doesn't serve people well - they need to acknowledge the wrong, correct what they can, and move on by growing from the experience. If you and your ancestors had nothing to do with it, good. But you can still use what you know to better understand those who did suffer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
They provide absolutely nothing to separate the US from any other imperial power in history. The topic centered around the US getting lashed at by others for being bad or wrong in deed.
And do you pretend to think US culture is not heavily influenced - for generations longer than Britain and France, by the way - by blacks/others? Ever heard of Jazz? Maya Angelou? Blues or Rock and Roll? Alex Haley? Spike Lee? Even Eric Clapton and the Rolling Stones claim to be heavily influenced by american blacks. C'mon, what a joke to imply that euro societies are more multicultural! I've lived in europe, too (Netherlands). What I saw were societies only recently starting to mix. |
You should check out my post where I clearly defended the right of the Americans to be included as a distinct civilization in the game because of the unique aspect, of amongst other cultural strands, Jazz music and Jazz culture. Dexters 'hallmark hall of fame' history of America carefully glossed over all the things I pointed out; the racial mixing of the old world was just down to the legacy of empire, instead of direct invitations to different ethnicities to come and settle in those countries. Something of a surprise to me, when I look back on, for instance, Whitechapel, where the Huguenot churches and workshops were turned into synagogues for refugees from Polish and Russian pogroms and are now mosques for Bengali immigrants and their 1st and 2nd generation British descendants.
I haven't implied European societies are more multicultural. Dexters harped on about how homogenous (read mighty white) the old world countries are, in contrast, say with a really racially diverse state like, oh, Idaho- 91% white. My point is, from having lived in Europe and travelled extensively there, that this simply is not the case.
'Molly, you can't be English and Black. Or at least you can't be ethnically English and be black. The English, along with Welsh, Irish, Scottish, etc. are different Nationalities. '
Yes indeed they are. Let's pick a famous non-white English person, shall we? Ever watched 'Red Dwarf', with the comedian Craig Charles? How about the music of the Propellerheads, with vocals by that non-white Welsh diva, Shirley Bassey?
'Shirley Veronica Bassey was born on January 8, 1937, the youngest of seven children. She grew up in Tiger Bay, Cardiff, Wales, the daughter of a ship's fireman, Henry Bassey, and his wife Eliza Jane. '
Nationality has little to do with racial origins for my black friends and me. 'Ain't no black in the Union Jack' is the racists' adage, and one that hasn't applied for a very long time.
www.blackpresence.co.uk/
www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E388M2/st...raz/bbpage.html
You might want to check out some of that first site to see how long and enduring the black presence in Britain has been; it goes back long before the Windrush, and descendants of, for instance, the Chinese community of Limehouse or Liverpool (oldest in Europe), or the Somali community in Wales, or the Arab community in the North-East identify as English, or Welsh, or Londoners or Scousers.
If dexters comments had focused on class or religion they might have been more relevant- a Green/Orange divide still exists in Glasgow and Liverpool, and class has always been a more potent test of prejudice in Great Britain.
'My guess is that you visited tourist traps, which are in no way representative of America at all. Live in America for a year, especially in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin...'
What, tourist traps like Snohomish, or Taft, or Twisp, or 'Bavarian' Leavenworth in the Cascades?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Dexters 'hallmark hall of fame' history of America carefully glossed over all the things I pointed out; the racial mixing of the old world was just down to the legacy of empire, instead of direct invitations to different ethnicities to come and settle in those countries. Something of a surprise to me, when I look back on, for instance, Whitechapel, where the Huguenot churches and workshops were turned into synagogues for refugees from Polish and Russian pogroms and are now mosques for Bengali immigrants and their 1st and 2nd generation British descendants.
I haven't implied European societies are more multicultural. Dexters harped on about how homogenous (read mighty white) the old world countries are, in contrast, say with a really racially diverse state like, oh, Idaho- 91% white. My point is, from having lived in Europe and travelled extensively there, that this simply is not the case.
|
For starters the very first post of my thread griped about the incessant, and what I see as highly biased and unfair America bashing that is coming from corners of the world that are "homogeneous" in nature and have little or no grasp of what America, the idealism that is America, is all about.
I included a link to a television ad which I thought captures that idealism.
I was not making any kind of moral judgement, until the America bashers came in and make a series of sarcastic comments and you came in to take the discussion into a some sourt of a court house where we sit around and judge who is a better country.
As for me not being to the UK, if you qualify a visit to London as a broad view of the UK, then truly your perspective is so stilted its not worth my time considering. Perhaps you qualify it as fair to use New York as the measuring stick of American populance, but America is a large country, demographics shifts drastically from region to region. The UK may have a few cosmopolitan cities, as are most major cities in any country these days, but that does not mean the country is more cosmopolitan than the United States. The numbers show the error in this assumption. But it's all moot. I'm growing tired of this pointless bickering.
let us go play Civ 3 or something.
Last edited by dexters on 08-12-2001 at 15:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
|
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
the Chinese community of Limehouse or Liverpool (oldest in Europe), or the Somali community in Wales, or the Arab community in the North-East identify as English, or Welsh, or Londoners or Scousers. |
Molly, my point is that nationalitiy does not have anything to do with what country you live in. You help prove my point when you go on about the Arabs, Chinese, Somalis, etc. They are Arabs in England, Chinese in England, Somalis in England. They are English people, citizens of England, but they are Arab, Chinese, or Somali in nationality. If they stay in their groups and don't assimilate, then they can not be "English." If they were truly English, you woudn't say that they were "Chinese in England" they would simply be "English." As of now, these people are citizens of the state of England. However, they are not members of the English nation anymore than they are of the Russian nation. They are Arabs, Chinese, Somalis, etc. who happen to live in England A state is a legal entity, and is inclusive. Anyone can be a part of a state. A nation is not a legal entity and is exclusive. Not everyone can be part of a nation. People erroneously use the terms state and nation as interchangeable ideas, but they are not. A state composed of one nation is a nation-state. Japan is a nation state. The U.S. is not.
Perhaps to better illustrate my point would be to describe what would happen if an Englishman moved to Germany. The Englishman would still be English, even if he achieved German citizenship. His children would still be English, and would continue to be English. This would continue until the English traits were completely gone from them, when they fully absorbed German culture and refered to themselves as Germans, not "English in Germany." This is why the "Arabs in England" are not of the English nation, even though they are English citizens. Some people would argue that they could never be members of the English nation, because ethnicity is a factor in most definitions of "nation". They would argue that Welsh, English, and Germans are racially different. According to this argument there could be no black English, even though there could be Black citizens of the state of England. This idea is relatively contoversial, but it is a fundamental of classical nationalism.
(BTW, did you take the ski America tour or something? Aren't all those places you mentioned ski resorts? I could be wrong though. Also, what is Twisp? I know of the Wisp, which is a ski resort in Maryland, but I haven't heard of Twisp. Just curious.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nationalist
Molly, my point is that nationalitiy does not have anything to do with what country you live in. You help prove my point when you go on about the Arabs, Chinese, Somalis, etc. They are Arabs in England, Chinese in England, Somalis in England. They are English people, citizens of England, but they are Arab, Chinese, or Somali in nationality. |
You're confusing nationality and ethnicity again. As for assimilation, I can assure you that the descendants of the Somali community aren't nomadic herders in Wales, and that the North-East's descendants of the Arab community do not live in tents or go sailing in dhows. Unless I suspect they go on holiday to the Yemen to visit relatives, a country many have never been to...
My point was to reference the multiplicity of racial origins of English (although most people would use British these days) citizens.
Dexters' still unsourced statistics you note, don't mention ethnicity except at the end...they are about nationality.
'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. '
It's Northern Ireland, by the way, not just Ulster. The three ancient states of the United Kingdom are listed first, with no mention of skin-pigmentation, you'll notice, and then the more recent creation, the six counties of Northern Ireland. Let me give you an example:
http://indigo.ie/~findinfo
Check out the citizenship requirements for Eire- you need only have a grandmother or grandfather who was born in Ireland to qualify for Irish citizenship- remember non-white Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy, or perhaps more up-to-date, Samantha Mumba ?
Similarly, Craig Charles, a Scouser, is English, and Shirley Bassey is Welsh. Do you understand how this fits in with dexters' somewhat misleading statistics? Welsh and black, English and black, Scottish and black- the terms are not mutually exclusive.
Dexters :
'I was not making any kind of moral judgement, until the America bashers came in and make a series of sarcastic comments and you came in to take the discussion into a some sourt of a court house where we sit around and judge who is a better country. '
See, I have problems with dexters' claim to not be making a moral judgment when I compare it with this:
'...something our friends who live in the old world with their little homogenous societies of all asians, all whities, all blackies will never grasp.
In their misery/envy mixed with that old world snobbiness, they create such polls as asking us to vote on whether America deserves to be in Civ III. '
Umm, yes, we're so envious we'd want to go and live in a really racially diverse state like Idaho- 91% white, and that's from the official state census, which actually says, white, not European origin, or non-Asian, but white.
The idea apparently is that America filled with idealism, invited all these races to come and live in America. Which comes as something of a surprise to me, when I recall the Indian Wars (like it was their fault), the Mexican Wars, the Spanish American War, war in Vietnam and by proxy in Central America...exclude all those possible points of origin for varying groups of people and it starts to build a picture of a differing complexion.
Of course poor old new world countries like the Netherlands and Great Britain and France had to rely on nasty old imperialist wars for their multicultural identities. Which given, for example, my reference to Whitechapel, Huguenots followed by Jewish refugees from the pogroms in Russia/Poland/Lithuania then Bengalis, is frankly ridiculous. I could also have instanced the centuries old refugee Greek community in Greek Street, Soho, or the Sephardi Jews invited to England by Cromwell, or...but you get my point?
'As for me not being to the UK, if you qualify a visit to London as a broad view of the UK, then truly your perspective is so stilted its not worth my time considering. '
You'll notice I mentioned I lived and worked in the Midlands, the North, and had travelled extensively throughout Great Britain and Ireland and Europe. You, evidently, have not, and therefore felt you had carte blanche to assume that various European countries were all white- your term, not mine.
I could also have mentioned Bradford, or Birmingham, home of Balti cuisine, or Wolverhampton, or Cardiff, or Swansea, or Newcastle, or Glasgow, or Edinburgh, or Portsmouth, or Plymouth, or Sheffield, or Leeds, or Bristol, or Leicester, or Liverpool, or Blackburn, or Huddersfield, or Hull, or....
But then you probably wouldn't have been to any of those places either.
'but that does not mean the country is more cosmopolitan than the United States'
Funny dexters, but no-one is claiming it is. What I'm pointing out is that your spurious claim that somehow these old world countries are all-white, all-black, is incorrect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Funny dexters, but no-one is claiming it is. What I'm pointing out is that your spurious claim that somehow these old world countries are all-white, all-black, is incorrect. |
To address some of your rebuttals, I never made any claim that the "old world" was entirely homogenous. I mentioned specifically select Western European countries that a retard will recognize is a very white, where most of these countries have white populations in the high 90 percent range. Even your "best case" UK only has a visible minority population of 2.5%. And quite frankly, I have statistics to back me up. Whereas your rebuttals are based on your own experiences? Experiences are advantageous in many areas, but not in the area of substituting hard statistical analysis. It is our biases that often color our judgement on which group is more numerous as we selectively remember what we want to remember.
You know, you can probably gather a bunch of communist lunatics to march down mainstreat usa and proclaim you have the backing the people behind your anti-capitlist group, and it may feel like it, but it does not mean the demographic statistics will agree with the claim.
And the crux of my complaint, and I suppose I could have said it more diplomatically, is that a lot of the America bashing, and the people who actively support "removing the Americans from Civ III" are from European countries that have very little diversity and is thus in no position to appropriate American Civilization into some kind of a non existent superstate that somehow exists because it is convenient to.
German , Italian, Chinese, Jewish, Swedish, Dutch, Japanese, African and a whole host of immigrants who have landed on North American soil consider themselves North Americans, and in no way emotionally tied to their motherlands. Considering upwards of 90% of North America's 300 million strong population and the 600 million strong population in all of the Americas came from somewhere else on this planet, that is a fundamentally different thing than the migratory populations that happens naturally on a continent like Eurasia that have moved into countries like Afghanistan or the frontier provinces of China over eons. In many cases, these people and their land were simply thrown into countries when their borders were drawn.
America is people, coming together to build a country. Its people did not emerge from the mist of time, there isn't a tribe somewhere we call the Americans, The people of America are the people of the world and ironically, despite having no tribal root, these diverse group of people can call themselves Americans. And that by its very definition is the mark of a distinct civilization, and a great one at that.
Last edited by dexters on 10-12-2001 at 09:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
|
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Molly,
Your conclusions are correct when using your definitions. I'm just nitpicking about the definitions that you are using. The classic definition of a "nation" includes ethnicity when refering to nationality. In the modern spin on the definition that you use, ethnicity is not a factor. If you don't believe me, just check out a government textbook and look up the definition of a nation. It includes ethnicity as required to belong to a nation, along with common language and culture. Germans felt that they were racially different than French. Many people don't agree with that definition today. Now, most don't count common ethnicity as a requisite of being a member of a nation. However, some still do. Depending on the definition used, ethnic Chinese can never be English, as much as ethnic English can never be Chinese. This would also mean that a Scot could never be English, and vice-versa. I do understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Ethnicity is race. Nationality is national identity. Using your definition of nationality a member of any ethnic group can be assimilated into a nation. Using the classic definition they can't. Also, using the classic definition, citizenship has nothing to do with nationality. Citizens of Hannover were as German as Citizens of Berlin. Using your definition, citizenship is a decisive factor in national identy, because you consider the nation and the state as interchangable terms. Classical nationalists did not think that this was so.
If dexter's source used your definition of nationality, then there can most definatly be black English. If they used the classic definition, then they couldn't be. I just assumed that since the figures were showing racial percentages, then they were considering English, Welsh, etc. as ethnic groups, therefore using the classic definition. I could be wrong in that assumption. If I'm not, then they aren't counting Blacks as English in that survey.
In my opinion all of this is just a side note. I don't think that a country shows how great it is by how ethnically diverse it is and, to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less how diverse England is. Wasn't Norway picked by the U.N. as the greatest country in the world last year by the U.N.? Its citizens are almost completely Scandinavian in ethnicity. Who cares? I think that the point to all of this arguing is that it is great if you think that your country is great. However, some people see a large anti-American bias on these forums and are sick of it and want to have their voices heard. dexters is Canadian and resents the America bashing! I don't care if you think that America is generic with a worthless (or evil!?!) culture, that we are a bunch of Klansmen burning crosses in the lawns of "colored folk", or that any kind of invention/advancement/ thought that has come from America was stolen from Europe. I jusy care if it seems like the only people who are voicing their opinions are those who feel this way, and therefore try to help represent the side who recognizes the truth: The U.S. is an important country, with a distinct culture and a unique perspective on the world. Molly, at least you admit that we have a valuable and unique culturewhich is more than what some others are willing to admit. But, regardless of what is written on these forums,life will go on, and Americans will be celebrating their unique, valuable culture, inventing new tecnologies and creating new philosophies despite the grumblings and gripings of a few foreign dorks who use some of their spare time to bash the U.S. on a video game forum. (Meanwhile, some of us American dorks will use their spare time to defend their country.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't think I can really trust your figures, seeing as how the total population of the Americas is upwards of 850 million, and North America's population is around 450 million. |
Welll... North America has been traditionally classified as Canada / US and Mexico, but my 300 million figure is infact accurate. 270 USA (approx) + 30 million Canadians = 300 million give or take a few million.
Mexico's population is 101 million, but in recent years, it has been classified more as a central American country than a North American country.
As for all of America's I only roughly estimated the total population of 600 million, if it is higher than I guess I'm wrong. , You can go to CIA's very reliable world factbook and add it up yourself. But I'm not so anal as to spend time adding it up.
Since posting website links seems fashionable, I'll post one of my own.
CIA WORLD Factbook
the numbers with regards to ethnic demographic numbers also comes from the same source.
Regardless of all this hair-splitting, my point still stands
Last edited by dexters on 10-12-2001 at 13:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dexters
To address some of your rebuttals, I never made any claim that the "old world" was entirely homogenous. I mentioned specifically select Western European countries that a retard will recognize is a very white, where most of these countries have white populations in the high 90 percent range. Even your "best case" UK only has a visible minority population of 2.5%. And quite frankly, I have statistics to back me up. Whereas your rebuttals are based on your own experiences? Experiences are advantageous in many areas, but not in the area of substituting hard statistical analysis. It is our biases that often color our judgement on which group is more numerous as we selectively remember what we want to remember.
|
How very unfortunate that you choose not to quote where your statistics come from, what the statistics mean, and define the terms included in those statistics: as I pointed out to nationalist, black and English, black and Scottish and black and Welsh and black and Irish are not mutually exclusive terms.
'who live in the old world with their little homogenous societies of all asians, all whities, all blackies will never grasp. '
Oh, gee dexters, this retard can't quite see which specific old world societies you're referring to there- can you point out which ones you mean, with your statistical analysis of the population breakdown by race/ethnicity? Preferably with reference to the censuses carried out out in those countries- I think we might allow that the national census of each country is going to be more reliable than the C.I.A.'s website. We are talking about the intelligence operation that mistook the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for a Serb target and one of whose officers believed that Tibet was near Hungary....
You see, you accuse me of showing bias, and yet you kick off this thread with a series of assumptions, based on your limited experience (a trip to London) and some unsourced, vague statistics. You proceed to make claims, such as that the U.S.A. was the republican democratic example for the world to follow- I point out that the world (presumably you meant Western Europe) already had several examples, the English Republican Commonwealth, The Dutch Republic of the United Provinces, the Republic of Iceland, San Marino, as well as a wealth of classical sources, such as Republican Rome, the city states of Greece and Asia Minor. Then you change the goalposts, and say they weren't big enough, and anyway, Cromwell ended up as a tyrant. Irrelevant to the argument at hand, I'm afraid. The point was, if Europe needed examples of republics they already had them :
'When The American Republic was established, the entire world was ruled by Monarchs. The idea of a Republic, although not a new idea, was a radical one in the 1700s, '
so radical, the idea had been around since the 1600s, and before-
encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/0B/00B58000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1
And of course, the United Provinces and San Marino and Iceland went on not being ruled by monarchs, as did many Native American territories...still, when the facts don't suit you, you can always change the goal posts again, can't you?
Your hard statistical analysis doesn't stand up to a moment's examining:
'We do A recent poll showed 80% of Canadians wouldn't mind joining the United States. '
Which poll? You never did answer.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
How very unfortunate that you choose not to quote where your statistics come from, what the statistics mean, and define the terms included in those statistics: as I pointed out to nationalist, black and English, black and Scottish and black and Welsh and black and Irish are not mutually exclusive terms. |
black English would be classified as people of mixed decent. The statistics on the CIA World factbook vary from country to country depending on how each country collect data. Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. And that entire grouping of people, according to UK's own numbers, it 2.8% of the total population.
Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality, which nullifies much of the ambiguity between an African who thinks he is English as he would simply be counted as an African or a black person. In fact, most government figures do not attempt to measure what people think they are, and simply measure in terms of race and ethnicity. This makes much of the debate about nationality moot.
quote:
'who live in the old world with their little homogenous societies of all asians, all whities, all blackies will never grasp. '
Oh, gee dexters, this retard can't quite see which specific old world societies you're referring to there- can you point out which ones you mean, with your statistical analysis of the population breakdown by race/ethnicity? Preferably with reference to the censuses carried out out in those countries- I think we might allow that the national census of each country is going to be more reliable than the C.I.A.'s website. We are talking about the intelligence operation that mistook the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for a Serb target and one of whose officers believed that Tibet was near Hungary.... |
If you have a quarrel with the CIA, you'd be glad to know that for the information in their world factbooks are taken from statistics and information released by the country in question. One should note that there are various footnotes on many of the statistics presented indicating the figures are either erroneous or are intentionally innacurate, as with the reported military Spending of the PROC. I think you should find yourself in quite a bind here as refuting these facts you refuse the countries who compiled the numbers themselves.
And as for your rather tasteless jab at the CIA for Bombing the Chinese embassy, its not really for this thread so I defer the matter for a future thread. , although it should be noted certain members of the American intelligence community have hinted the bombing may infact not have been a mistake but a calculated target to disrupt Chinese intelligence operatives who may have been aiding the Serbs on how to detect stealth aircraft and potential operations with gathering intelligence on American military hardware. Regardless, its not news to anyone that embassies are hotbeds for spies with false diplomatic credentials.
Certainly, its not the job of the CIA or any intelligence agency to advertises its successes, so I would certainly write-off any attempt to criticize intelligence agencies based on "news items" the intelligence agency in question may have manufactured themselves as a cover story.
But like I said, its not for this thread.
quote:
You see, you accuse me of showing bias, and yet you kick off this thread with a series of assumptions, based on your limited experience (a trip to London) and some unsourced, vague statistics. You proceed to make claims, such as that the U.S.A. was the republican democratic example for the world to follow- I point out that the world (presumably you meant Western Europe) already had several examples, the English Republican Commonwealth, The Dutch Republic of the United Provinces, the Republic of Iceland, San Marino, as well as a wealth of classical sources, such as Republican Rome, the city states of Greece and Asia Minor. Then you change the goalposts, and say they weren't big enough, and anyway, Cromwell ended up as a tyrant. Irrelevant to the argument at hand, I'm afraid. The point was, if Europe needed examples of republics they already had them : |
This is part of a discussion that happened over a week ago. I responded to your rebuttal by simply, and effectively saying most historians have no quarrel with the fact that a democratic republic is possible even before the Americans came along. But before the Americans came along, the best examples of a sustainable republican democracies (not Cromwell's Flash in the pan, despotic failed republic you pointed out) had been small scale democracies. And in fact, many of the classical writers looked to the Athenian model. The American Republic in both its geographic size and the scope of the population proved a LARGE democractic Republic was feasable, and has continued to up to ante as its population has multiplied a thousand fold in its 200 odd years as a Republic. This held until larger scale democracies like India, with its 1 billion strong population became a Democracy and exists today as the world's largest democracy.
The irony of course was the founders of the American Republic looked to Athens and Rome, and was well versed in classical thinking as they attempted many of the political theories discussed but not implemented in Europe. Including the system of checks and balances that have come to define the Federal system of the United States government. Of course, that's not to take anything away from Europe. America borrowed liberally from the contemporary Europe of its time, including keeping much of the English codes of law, the parliament was altered to reflect the classical leanings of the founders into a Senate, the upper house (like the house of lords), and the house of representatives (the members of parliament). But at no time did I make the point that the United States somehow created out of nothing this great nation.
What the country has done is created a great civilization out of discarded and radical European ideas the monarchs in Europe would rather not touch and along the way, the set the bar on many things, including the aforementioned formation of a large Republic that until then was thought to be an unstable and risky proposition and many in Europe openly questioned its feasability, especially in the immediate aftermath of the revolution and America was essentially a bankrupted nation, with a weak tax system and thirteen colonies threatening to go their separate ways. The cohesion that occured, in between those shaky early days of the Republic, and the great Republic that it is today proved more than anything that America is a distinct entity , and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture and thus cannot be classified as a civ in Civ III. That's been the whole thrust of my unhappiness with some of the posters here and has been the catalyst of starting this thread.
quote:
so radical, the idea had been around since the 1600s, and before-
encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/0B/00B58000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1
And of course, the United Provinces and San Marino and Iceland went on not being ruled by monarchs, as did many Native American territories...still, when the facts don't suit you, you can always change the goal posts again, can't you? |
Unlike Al Gore, I don't claim to invent the Internet and I don't claim America invented Democracy either. Unless you fail to understand what I say, or choose to take what I say out of context so you'll have one more point to rebutt, then I feel truly sorry. But All I've said all along is America set a major presedence with its Revolution not only by showing the way to many disgruntled colonies in the Americas to begin their own Revolution but also by showing a large scale democracy is possible.
quote:
Your hard statistical analysis doesn't stand up to a moment's examining:
'We do A recent poll showed 80% of Canadians wouldn't mind joining the United States. '
Which poll? You never did answer..... |
I have a very reliable source in the CIA World Factbook, compiled from the own statistics of governments the world over and used by most major governmental departments in the US. I'm sure there is a more comprehensive set of facts that is not avaialable to the public.
Your attempt to make a correlation between the factbook being a CIA and thus an American creation and bias is wholelly unfounded, not only is it pure conjecture, you've certainly shot yourself in the foot as the facts you claim are innacurate is in fact the facts local governments make public through their various governmental agencies. THe CIA, unlike most of your opinionated links, do not make moral, editorial judgements, they only collects these information and make commentaries on the reliablity of the information when neccessary.
As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/
Last edited by dexters on 11-12-2001 at 07:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
C.I.A. infallibility- it's almost as good as Papal infallibility:
www.ilsr.org/columns/052099.html :
'Sometimes the Agency's level of ineptitude is simply laughable. The 1998 CIA World Factbook, for example, informed us that the United Kingdom gained its independence on January 1, 1801. The correct date was a wee bit earlier--1087 to be exact. The Factbook also notified an astonished world that listens regularly to the BBC World Service that Britain has no shortwave broadcast stations.
When London's Daily Telegraph inquired about the misinformation the CIA blithely responded, "We never comment on intelligence matters, or lack of intelligence matters." '
Oh but it must be true! The C.I.A. use the statistics of the country in question!
Which must be why William Hague is still leader of the Conservative Party then? Except he isn't. It's Iain Duncan Smith.
'Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. '
'Which will likely'...'which will likely'... in other words, you don't know, you're simply asserting it to be the case.
'Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality'
Another assertion. Not backed up by any facts, hard or otherwise.
'and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture '
Which homogenous all-white countries? We still don't have that elusive list you keep promising us.
'As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/'
But what were the parameters of the poll? Who were the people questioned? 'Oh, it was done either by this one, or the other one, or another one....'
mmmm....that's very definite then, is it?
'Mexico's population is 101 million, but in recent years, it has been classified more as a central American country than a North American country. '
Exactly who has classified it more as a Central American country? The C.I.A. ? Your uncle? The man who lives two doors down from you?
'Central America, region of the western hemisphere, made up of a long, tapering isthmus that forms a bridge between North and South America. Central America, which is defined by geographers as part of North America, has an area of about 521,500 sq km (about 201,300 sq mi) and includes the countries of Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. The region has a population of approximately 36.4 million (2000 estimate).'
www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/namerica/ctrmaps/ctrmap.htm
encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=05A0D000
Now you see that conspicuously blank bit to the north of Central America? - that's Mexico.
'The problem of course all the examples presented above were small scale democracies. It has been long thought that Democracies in the scale of city states as exemplified by Athens would work, but would not work in a large scale. This is why Most historians have discounted small scale democracies (post-Athens) in Europe and elsewhere as they were all consistent with the traditional belief that small scale democracies work. America was the exception.
Oh yes, and America did show the way. '
The problem of course, is that it doesn't suit your biased view of world history to acknowledge that the idea of a republic and a European republic already existed. Small scale? The English Commonwealth, the Venetian Republic, Iceland, The United Provinces, the Swiss Cantonal Federation, scale has nothing to do with it. We were talking about first principles. Now to the 'most historians' part. Which ones? I'd like to see some of these historians quoted.
America showed the way....leading from the rear, chronologically, I imagine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That factbook also claims that the US has a larger land area than China, a blatant lie. |
Not really. US Hawaiin islands have an ever expanding area and like all data, it is what you include that makes all the difference. US has various island possesions in the Pacific, the American Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, all of which are not technically American states but are American possesions, or under American protection. Some of which, like Puerto Rice, even have representatives in the US Congress
Here's some facts from a third party source.
http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/find.htm
China's Land Area:
Land Area 9,326,410 sq km (3,600,927 sq miles)
USA Land Area
(50 states) 9,158,918 sq km (3,536,278 sq miles)
(48 states) 8,588,712 sq km (3,316,118 sq miles) <--excluding Hawaii and Alaska
Clearly, at 50 states, the US is only 64 odd square miles less than China's size. Add in the pacific and latin American possesions and it will have a larger size than China.
But it's all moot. Arguing over trivial facts, and two countries that are for measurement's sake identical in size is an amusing distraction at most but certainly shows how much you want to poke holes at stuff that needen't any poking.
Just stick with the discussion bud.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
C.I.A. infallibility- it's almost as good as Papal infallibility:
www.ilsr.org/columns/052099.html :
'Sometimes the Agency's level of ineptitude is simply laughable. The 1998 CIA World Factbook, for example, informed us that the United Kingdom gained its independence on January 1, 1801. The correct date was a wee bit earlier--1087 to be exact. The Factbook also notified an astonished world that listens regularly to the BBC World Service that Britain has no shortwave broadcast stations.
When London's Daily Telegraph inquired about the misinformation the CIA blithely responded, "We never comment on intelligence matters, or lack of intelligence matters." ' |
Right... More opinion peices. Molly, if you can give me some hard facts and not opinions (of which there are plenty for all types of fetishes and walks of life) then perhaps I'll take you seriously.
As I've said, if you wish to challenge the facts in this particular case, the CIA World Factbook, you'll have to take it with the individual goverments as they are the ones who make these facts public. The CIA, for this public edition of the factbook, simply amalgates this information.
quote:
Oh but it must be true! The C.I.A. use the statistics of the country in question! |
so... you're calling the entire world liars? I'm sure your friends over at the Australian government or the UK government would be very happy to hear you trash their statistics, just because it is presented by an American agency.
quote:
Which must be why William Hague is still leader of the Conservative Party then? Except he isn't. It's Iain Duncan Smith. |
And your ineptitude and rush to judgement begins to show. This is the public version of the CIA World Factbook and thus, the 2001 public edition actually contains somewhat dated information, many of which are denoted by brackets noting the year. ie: (1999)
quote:
'Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. '
'Which will likely'...'which will likely'... in other words, you don't know, you're simply asserting it to be the case. |
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck. So... just because there is no "category" for people of mixed descent, they must magically be English or Welsh even if they have black, Egyptian, chinese blood in them? Clearly, any rational human will place this category where it makes the most sense, under "other"
quote:
'Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality'
Another assertion. Not backed up by any facts, hard or otherwise.
|
How about another ebutall not backed by anything thinking? The UK statistics we've been talking about clearly breaks it down based on ethnicity, or are you blind?
quote:
'and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture '
Which homogenous all-white countries? We still don't have that elusive list you keep promising us. |
How about Western Europe for you to start? Maybe even the racist anti-immigrant country called Australia.
quote:
'As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/'
But what were the parameters of the poll? Who were the people questioned? 'Oh, it was done either by this one, or the other one, or another one....' |
That was from another discussion and I merely mentioned it in passing. But you're right, the question of the poll is not clear to me, so I simply let the nugget of trivia to live or die by itself. There was no attempt to prop it up to constrew more meaning that its supposed to mean. Why would would throw it into this discussion is beyond me. Out of spite perhaps?
mmmm....that's very definite then, is it?
quote:
'Mexico's population is 101 million, but in recent years, it has been classified more as a central American country than a North American country. '
Exactly who has classified it more as a Central American country? The C.I.A. ? Your uncle? The man who lives two doors down from you? |
How about the business community and various politicans which prefer to classify Mexico as a central American country. It's really a moot point of course. We're just throwing the same numbers in different boxes, but if you insist, we can live happily ever after and include it under North America, they are under NAFTA after all. But of course, that doesn't change much as the comment regarding the population in Americas was a rough Estimate I made in my head, which I clearly stated when asked how accurate the numbers was. I even went so far as provided a link for people to do the match themselves. I don't hide behind opinion peices and conjecture lwhen facts clearly contradict their opinions.
quote:
'The problem of course all the examples presented above were small scale democracies. It has been long thought that Democracies in the scale of city states as exemplified by Athens would work, but would not work in a large scale. This is why Most historians have discounted small scale democracies (post-Athens) in Europe and elsewhere as they were all consistent with the traditional belief that small scale democracies work. America was the exception.
Oh yes, and America did show the way. '
The problem of course, is that it doesn't suit your biased view of world history to acknowledge that the idea of a republic and a European republic already existed. Small scale? The English Commonwealth, the Venetian Republic, Iceland, The United Provinces, the Swiss Cantonal Federation, scale has nothing to do with it. We were talking about first principles. Now to the 'most historians' part. Which ones? I'd like to see some of these historians quoted.
America showed the way....leading from the rear, chronologically, I imagine. |
Well... all very good.
Venetian Republic 1770–1850, nice! 80 years. And a Republic based on a city state. That's certainly a large scale republic.
Iceland, how many people live there?
England's failed attempt at a Republic under Cromwell's short reign?
Swiss Cantonal Federation? Here's what the Swiss say on their own website. -- Switzerland is a nation shaped by the resolve of its citizens: it is not an ethnic, linguistic or religious entity. Since 1848, it has been a federal state - one of 23 in the world and the second oldest after the United States of America.
http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/schweiz/political.html
I don't recall the American revolution happening in 1876, it think you're off by several decades there buddy.
it's all very impressive, but like I said, no one is arguing the Republican and Democratic ideas were created by Americans, they didn't , but the Americans experimented with it on a grand scale, and certainly, without that experiment, we would still be under the delusion that only small nation states, with small populations that are more agreeable than the mobs of a large nation , can be ruled effectively as a democracy.
It's all very amusing Molly. But none of your examples qualify as a big republic. And size does matter. It is the opening up of the possibilities. It is like realizing one day that something you thought was limited actually not limited. That's the legacy of the American Republic and those who followed in its footsteps, namely the even larger democracy that is India.
So spare me your Venetian Republics. You add way too much useless examples to your rebuttals that doesn't make the case..
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ntyatecafe
|
|
Georgia, USA
Dec 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Just a couple quick comments for those talking about America's racism problems.
1. Have you ever seen crosses burned in someone's yard? Have you ever come face-to-face with a member of the KKK? Have you ever witnessed firsthand the horrible racism that runs rampant in America? If you answered no to any of these questions then you are in no position to comment on this matter.
2. Let's grow out of the convenience of stereotypes, shall we? I have seen more racism from African-Americans than I have from any caucasians.
Now, let me clarify before this post gets shredded and misunderstood...Do I think racism is evil? Yes. Do I think racism is a dominant factor in America? No...only an idiot or a fool would assume that racism still runs rampant through the streets in downtown USA. It still exists, but it is not a large factor, and it is not exclusively used by caucasians. Claiming that America has racism problems is like claiming that the British have major drinking problems. Some people do, some people don't. Now unless you actually know what you are talking about, sit down...shut up...and let your betters have the floor.
BTW...since everyone has gotten so longwinded in discussions of opinions, politics, and histories contaminated by opinions, I just thought I'd ask...does anyone remember the actual point to this thread? Without re-reading the first few postings?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
Poor dexters, is your grasp of European history so shaky, you turned to the first website that mentioned the Venetian Republic that you could find? And did it mention, by any chance, William Wordsworth, noted non-Venetian, Poet Laureate of Great Britain, who happened to write a poem called 'On the Extinction of the Venetian Republic', and who lived from 1770-1850?
dexters infirm grasp of history:
'Venetian Republic 1770–1850, nice! 80 years. And a Republic based on a city state. That's certainly a large scale republic. '
Try instead for your education and edification:
www.boglewood.com/timeline/
1,070 years of republican government. ONE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY CONTINUOUS YEARS. Based on a city state, indeed, but as any Northern Italian, or Greek, or Croatian or Cypriot could tell you, or indeed anyone with a better grasp of history than yourself, also including, at times, parts of northern Italy, Crete, Cyprus, The Morea, The Dalmatian Islands- well, I could go on, but why should I bother educating you at my expense. I can't see any point in continuing an argument with someone whose grasp of facts is limited to second-hand information from the C.I.A. and their own biased opinions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-12-2001 12:25
. I just confused your sarcasm with whining about situations and social problems that really don't concern you. My mistake. Some Americans more are sensitive to and resentful of world opinion in these days. I think that is justified. Now, if you all would excuse me, I am going to go out and exploit some minorities and opress a few 3rd world countrys with a few of my evil imperialist American friends 
It has spoiled too many threads that could have led to good discussions...
|