The gummint screwed up again

Post Reply New Topic

Again, Americans have different opinions, but that doesn't make someone disagreeing with you any less American. Otherwise, pretty soon you'll be the only one who fits your definition of an American.

Bill, it remains true whether you like it or not: Words have meaning. I wouldn't call you a Nazi because you don't fit the definition. I won't call you an American because you don't fit that definition either. As somebody who exults and espouses alien ideas, such as those of the Wobblies, you ought to accept that you are a post-American who wishes to--as Obama put it--"change" American into something else.

Nor can you see the dissonance and incongruity in your position of on the one hand saying an American nation doesn't exist, and on the other becoming resentful that you aren't included in the nation you deny the existence of. Don't you see what your beliefs are doing to your thinking?

Who says I believe everything the Wobblies said? The important thing is, they had stood up for people doing the dangerous, low paying jobs on the post-frontier America when no one else did. And they were the ones who lost their lives when companies hired gunmen or vigilante committees to murder striking workers or union organizers. And that's why they IWW is still revered in my part of the country.
And please don't question that I'm an American. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a real American, even though I find the obsession with the Confederate past, and the dismissing of segregation to be very distasteful.

What on earth are Wobblies?

I have to disagree with you this time Librarian. Of course Bill's an American. So is every American that has different views to you. How do you define an American? One who believes in guns, the death penalty, heterosexual marriage, etc etc but no-one else?

Would you describe Lincoln, generally regarded and admired as your nation's greatest President with good reason for abolishing slavery among other things, as a "liberal"? Or as a conservative who did what needed to be done at the time? What about the British reformers, such as Wilberforce? Other great reformers and thinkers too numerous to mention? Liberalism is not something new. However, it develops with the times, as indeed does conservatism.

You can't in fact have one without the other for healthy dialogue!

Envirozentinel, if it will assuage you any, I am not calling Bill a post-American to be nasty. He is indeed as much as US citizen as I am. The reason I deny that Bill is an American is that he refuses to admit any such thing exists. He has admitted that American isn't a culture, but an idea.

As far as Wobblies go, they were a group of Gilded Age communists who were mostly influenced by alien ideas brought to these shores by the Ellis Island invasion. See here if you are interested in learning more about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial ... _the_World

Bill, as far as my respect for the Confederacy is concerned, it is real. But Confederates were an integral component of the American nation. American is NOT a political, but a cultural term. American is an ethnicity. Much truth is spoken in jest. As such, one of the best lines was spoken by Granny Clampett on the Beverly Hillbillies when she characterized the Civil War as when "the north invaded America". Since even back then, northerners were deracinated liberals, while Southerners were pre-modern traditionalists, her statement has the ring of truth. It is still true.

As far as my position on segregation goes, I do NOT favor mandatory segregation for the same reason I do not favor forced desegregation: Both violate the First Amendment's right to free association, which is an American value, though not a liberal one. The government ought to remain completely agnostic on the issue.

As to what constitutes being an American, that is a very complicated question, since it is a cultural issue. I am happy to recommend some reading; just ask.

Th Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were for the time radical organized labor in teh tail end of the Old west. To be sure, many of their beliefs, such as staging a national strike from which would emerge labor controlling means and production of industry, was just pie-in-the sky fantasy. But this was born out of not alien notions brought from overseas like Librarian says, but was largely homegrown among people who did dangerous, low paying work on the American frontier and post-frontier, but who had gained absolutely nothing from capitalism, and were rather it's most vulnerable victims. The majority of Wobblies (which had included my own granddad) had joined because they got results. When other unions had allowed themselves to fall for racial and ethnic prejudice, which employers could use against them, the Wobblies realized everyone needed to be organized - whites, foreign and native born, blacks, Asians, women, etc. - so one group couldn't be manipulated against another. It was for that all inclusiveness that had gained them the label of radicalism as much as their more outlandish political views. It was the Wobblies who were the victims of of violence by companies who had hired gunmen or vigilance committees to murder them, and yet they continued to agitate. It was only in the days of the First World War that the government saw an opportunity to destroy them when the Wobblies refused to surrender their right to strike during wartime, or even to condemn those who opposed American entry into the war. At first. the Wilson administration had accused them of being Pro-German, claiming that IWW stood for Imperial Wilhelm's Warriors. Later, as the war wound down and the Russian Revolution occurred, they were suddenly accused to being communists (in fact, they and the communists disliked one another). The US army took over saw mills that had been unionized by the Wobblies - only to discover that every one of their complaints of horrendous working conditions were absolutely true. The Wobblies had continued to exist to this day, though for years and years, they were the victims of government oppression and even attacks by right wing terrorist groups like the KKK. Today, they are remembered fondly in my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest, as an important and colorful element in our regional history, and contributors to the frontier radicalism that had helped shape the political and social climate of the West Coast today.
I hope that answered your question.

If you want me to accept the Confederacy's role in shaping your region's and state's character, why can't you extend the same courtesy with the IWW in mine?

My biggest problem with all of your arguments is your unwavering definition of Anglo-Celtic Protestant culture being the only true American definition. You do realize that the majority of the nation does not fit that description, don't you? How can a small minority of citizens be the definition of its culture?

I also have a problem with the fact that freedom of speech and religion came from Anglo-Saxon values, yet you seem to be opposed to them to some extent.

As for your claims of Anglo-Celtic culture being the core of the founding of the US:
Of the 1787 delegates (there were 55 of them) 9 were born in foreign countries: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, two (Wilson and Witherspoon) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.

On Protestants being at the core of the birth of the nation:
Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian after the Revolutionary War ended, to distance themselves from the English they so despised), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were anti-clerical Christians. Others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists,
Many of the founders (such as Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were not really Christians or Deists, but supporters of a hybrid "Theistic Rationalism."

Last edited by sonofghandi on 04 Nov 2013, 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know several of the CFRs backwards and forwards. I deal with the Code of Federal Regulations on a daily basis. Granted, I deal with 10 CFR the most, but I also have to deal with 6, 16, 21, 29, 40, 42, CFR. I have to deal with inspections from the NRC, EPA, FDA, DOE, HSA, OSHA, DOT, TJC, and the ACR.



You are the one opposed to change and progress, so I don't see how this helps your argument, other than this particular example came from Democrats. At no point have I stated support for permanent regulations or congressional acts. I personally think that every bill passed by congress should be reviewed every 10-20 years and either updated, amended, or repealed depending on its relevance to current times.



Do you really believe that this helps your case? Your endorsement of discrimination and intolerance is something I find unpalatable. Liberals do find some of the public actions towards certain groups as abhorrent, but that does not mean that they ignore it.

To repeat: Most liberals do look at the past. They look at past problems and look for ways to solve them. You continue to state that liberals are against the values held in the 50s and prior, which is a faulty assumption. Yes, they oppose the discrimination that ran rampant, as do most conservatives. Just because a person disagrees with some attitudes of the past does not mean that they oppose all of them.

Thelibrarian wrote:

Your point being? Even though I did not vote for Obama or W, I would like to point out that the people voted in the W abomination for the previous 2 elections.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 04 Nov 2013, 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I know you like to talk about America as an ethnicity, and you proclaim Anglo-Celtic as the basis of the culture.
But only 63% of US citizens are white, non-hispanic. and here is a quote from Wikipedia entry on White American:



And those are a percentage of the white population, not the US in total. This is a big reason I have trouble accepting your definition of what makes someone American.

Bill, if you want to support the Wobblies, that's fine. But no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise, it was not an American organization. The kind of radicalism represented by the IWW was anathema and alien to everything it means to be an American. Having said that, it is a free country, and I respect your right to believe whatever you want. I only object when you call it American. Again, just like it means something to be a Wobblie, it means something to be an American. And if American means something, there are other things it doesn't mean.

Ghandi, if America were zero percent white, it would remain an historical fact that this country was founded by Anglo-Celtic-Protestants. There is nothing you can do to change that. At the time the Constitution was written, this country was over ninety percent of British stock, and over ninety-eight percent Protestant. That is simply fact.

I would add that it is anti-American liberalism that puts the profits of the elites ahead of the welfare of the people that allowed this to happen. Liberalism is a sickness that is destroying America.

It can easily be argued that Anglo-Celtic-Protestant societies are among the most successful the world has ever seen, not only in terms of material prosperity, but in terms of freedom. I don't think it is at all coincidental that as the country becomes less Anglo-Celtic-Protestant that it is also becoming less prosperous and less free.

Bill is right about one thing, and that is that the Wobblies were founded to address a very real problem. That problem was open borders, the same problem this country has today.

You are the one opposed to change and progress, so I don't see how this helps your argument, other than this particular example came from Democrats. At no point have I stated support for permanent regulations or congressional acts. I personally think that every bill passed by congress should be reviewed every 10-20 years and either updated, amended, or repealed depending on its relevance to current times.

Actually, I am skeptical of what you term "change" and "progress" on the grounds that change frequently is more regress than progress. The Obama administration is just one example. This administration has hardly been good for average Americans.

If you think about it, most change is bad.

Thelibrarian wrote:
It is the essence not only of modernism and postmodernism, but of progressivism. Am I really supposed to believe that any of these movement which are the essence of liberalism look backwards? The fact is that modern liberals look at anything prior to the war on the American people known as civil rights as a dark age of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Liberalism defines itself in opposition to the values held in the 1950's and before not only on race, but on homosexuality, women's rights, sex outside of marriage, etc. etc. etc. These attitudes are embodied in liberals' favored current self-description: Progressivism. Am I supposed to believe that progressive actually favor looking backward toward the past? Or do they shun the past in favor of some kind of imagined glorious future? Do you really believe that liberals love pre-sixties attitudes on these social issues, or am I supposed to believe this?


Do you really believe that this helps your case? Your endorsement of discrimination and intolerance is something I find unpalatable. Liberals do find some of the public actions towards certain groups as abhorrent, but that does not mean that they ignore it.

To repeat: Most liberals do look at the past. They look at past problems and look for ways to solve them. You continue to state that liberals are against the values held in the 50s and prior, which is a faulty assumption. Yes, they oppose the discrimination that ran rampant, as do most conservatives. Just because a person disagrees with some attitudes of the past does not mean that they oppose all of them.

Yes, I believe an objective argument can be made that things were better back in the bad old days before the sixties. Your attitude that this period was a dark, evil age of intolerance and discrimination is just what I am referring to.

It is not coincidence that wages for the average American began declining in the wake of the cultural revolution of the sixties, including for blacks. Nor is it coincidence that this event coincided with rising crime rates, as well as rising divorce rates, illegitimacy rates, drug use rates, and all of the other social pathologies. The fact is that the cultural revolution has been good--very good--for the wealthiest among us. It has been devastating to average Americans. And this is the crowd whose welfare I am concerned with. Liberalism only pretends to be for the little guy, when in reality it makes monarchy look like a populist movement.

As far as discrimination goes, it is pure liberal conceit that they don't discriminate. Once again, the fact that NOW isn't going to nominate Rush Limbaugh for their president is discrimination against him. What's more, I see nothing wrong with it. I proudly discriminate against bullies, and I see nothing wrong with that either. The liberal phobia against discrimination is bizarre to say the least. The fact is that every time we make a decision of any kind, we discriminate. What makes discrimination wrong is what we discriminate against. The caste system in India is one of the most evil examples of discrimination I'm aware of. It makes anything that happened in the South look like child's play.

Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as US citizens not being liberal, I will remind you that they voted for that post-American abomination that occupies the White House not once, but twice.


Your point being? Even though I did not vote for Obama or W, I would like to point out that the people voted in the W abomination for the previous 2 elections.

You are right. But George W. Bush was a liberal impersonating a conservative. This is why when he left office he was about as popular as rabies. Both Bushes were New England liberals.

It's the same with Mitt Romney. Romney actually received three million fewer white votes than did McCain, who is another liberal. Americans are slowly catching on to the realities I am speaking of.

How is helping people being stepped on by the powerful not American? In fact, fighting the foot is the essence of being American. And that is exactly what the Wobblies did. So what if they had some impossible pie-in-the sky ideas? At least their practical accomplishments genuinely helped people regardless of ethnic or racial background. I can't possibly see how that's Un-American. The fact is, Americans are a diverse lot in regard to beliefs and backgrounds - to say otherwise does a great disservice to the people of this great nation.

About 85% of the white population (which was approximately 2.4 million) was of English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh descent, with 9% of German origin and 4% Dutch. And nearly 4 million slaves (1860 census).



The anglo-celtic culture you so admire had some different views than you assume. The anglo culture of the time was based in mercantilism (the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires). That culture believed that only land owners should be allowed to vote. It the authority to tax anyone at any rate determined by those in power. This was a big part of the reason for the struggle for independence. The culture changed at the very beginning of the nation, even though you are opposed to any further change.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 05 Nov 2013, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

So at what point in human history did change become bad? Was it the 1960s? Was it at the founding of the country? By your reasoning, we should still have legal slavery, or a feudal system. We should be sun worshippers or watch gladiators fight to the death. We should all be wandering tribes. We should never have developed the written language or even the spoken one. We shouldn't even have evolved from one celled organisms in the first place.



To repeat (again): Most liberals do look at the past. They look at past problems and look for ways to solve them. You continue to state that liberals are against the values held in the 50s and prior, which is a faulty assumption. Yes, they oppose the discrimination that ran rampant, as do most conservatives. Just because a person disagrees with some attitudes of the past does not mean that they oppose all of them.

Which attitudes on social issues prior to the 60s do you think were justifiable? Which were not?



I never said it was a dark age. I am talking about the fact that a minority of Americans were allowed to treat others as sub-human in some pretty terrible ways with no recrimination whatsoever. It isn't the culture, it is what is done in its name. You continue to make the assumption that I am an extreme liberal because I do not agree with you. By your own definition, there are very few conservatives in this country, which would mean that your idea of American culture is already effectively extinct.



Look at historical trends throughout the nation's history, not just the few years that support your narrow views. By your reasoning, we should have been in steady decline for the last two centuries. The views and opinions of the nation have changed from the very beginning, so trying to say that all ills came from legislation that prevented discrimination against significant portions of the nation is problematic in many ways.



And yet you support what is effectively a caste system, stigma associated with the poor.



Seriously? You think the Bush family is full of liberals?