____________ - American

[pimpdave]

I'm not accusing bedub1 of being a racist, just that his line of argument is.

I think your view that he is racist... lends itself to intellectual dishonesty.

I think you're making shit up now.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not accusing bedub1 of being a racist, just that his line of argument is.

I think your view that he is racist... lends itself to intellectual dishonesty.

I think you're making shit up now.

Apologies. I'm bored. There's no good threads any more. I've tried to make some, but they are largely ignored.

[pimpdave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhZTeR51ST8

[bedub1]

So now you're backtracking? I make perfect sense. By your logic, you're supposed to assimilate into the Indian culture and way of doing things, not force them to assimilate into what you dictate is the presiding culture of the nation.

This thread has gone from borderline to full-blown racist in a few pages, and I love it. Bedub1, please keep making racist jokes in the forum, it helps underscore just how unjust Dancing Mustard's banning was.

I saw the racism card thrown and said to myself, "Self... what is the racism?" So, I read through the posts again. I still saw no racism. So, I'll ask you, pimpdave, where is the racism?

It's subtle. It's this arrogance demanding assimilation to our Anglo-influenced culture. It would benefit me if people did so, sure. To demand it though is racist.

I'm not accusing bedub1 of being a racist, just that his line of argument is. Especially since he makes no mention of the Little Italys or the Chinatowns, just as an example. Instead he singles out "mini-mexicos" and demands they assimilate. I doubt he even realizes he's a racist. Probably thinks he's open-minded, but he's not, and if he isn't called out on this line of thinking, it'll only get reinforced as legitimate.

This also underscores the weakness of speaking in analogy. I'm sure that in defense and back pedaling, he or you (in your continued white-knighting around the fora) will revert to the salad analogy in order to explain whatever crazy xenophobic notion he's trying to advance ("Children, words are like bullets").

It's either intellectually dishonest or completely devoid of intelligence.

There is no national language in the USA, there is no law declaring a particular culture as The One for the nation. To declare there is an Official Culture leads to these veiled racist criticisms and commentaries.

I actually thought of Little Italy and Chinatown the other day when I was thinking of other cultures that pop up little areas of town that are all one way, just never got around to posting it. They are also great examples. You seem to think that I want everybody to assimilate into the Anglo-influenced culture, but what I really want is them to spread their culture into ours so we can take on aspects of their culture, while they take on aspects of ours.

Yeah, I know, totally ridiculous, right pale face?

Thats the only thing racist I can find in the entire thread...

[YoursFalsey]

There is a question of racism, but it's not whether bedub is racist in demanding others be assimilated, as he's not demanding assimilation. Or maybe it's more accurate to say this is a question about racism.

When person X claims to be a Whatever-American rather then simply claiming to be an American, they are making the unspoken statement that Whatever-Americans are somehow distinct and different from Non-Whatever Americans. I interpreted bedub's question as wanting to know why they make that statement and what they mean by it. (Do they mean that they are Whatever-American INSTEAD of American? that they are American, but proud of being both American and Whatever? that they feel non-Whatevers have pigeonholed them into a seperate category? that they are American, but influenced by a Whatever heritage? Any or all of the above, depending on the individual and their circumstance?)

If I say person X is inferior because person X is a whatever, that is racism. If person X says I am inferior because I'm not a whatever, that is racism. When person X says whatevers are different from non whatevers, is that racism? When bedub or I say we don't like the term whatever-American because we believe all Americans are Americans, whatever and non-whatever alike, is THAT racism? If person X wants me to use the term whatever-American and I don't wish to, who is the racist? Me for not respecting X's cultural choice? X for trying to force me to treat whatevers as different from non whatevers?

The big obvious racisms are pretty much taken care of these days- but subtle racisms are trickier because intelligent people can disagree even if they have no agenda, and many people on both sides of the debates do have agendas. Denouncing someone just for having a different viewpoint is a disservice...

[Timminz]

How many times does one person have to post things that "could lend themselves to racism", before people call a spade a fucking spade?

[YoursFalsey]

Wow, that doesn't just lend itself, that's blatent. I thought 'spade' died with my grandmother's generation.

Just because I don't like African-American as a term for black, doesn't mean I do like spade or coon or the n-word or any of the other perjoratives that folks use. This conversation is about whether "xxxxxx"-American is a divisive term or not, and if it's not divisive, then when is it appropriate. I think xxxxxx-American is a divisive term, but it certainly isn't a divisive as other perjoratives.

[Timminz]

Ummm... I was not talking about you. I don't know anything about you, and you certainly haven't been starting threads full of racist bullshit for months.

[Skittles!]

There are some numerous people being Shit-Americans.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not accusing bedub1 of being a racist, just that his line of argument is. Especially since he makes no mention of the Little Italys or the Chinatowns, just as an example. Instead he singles out "mini-mexicos" and demands they assimilate. I doubt he even realizes he's a racist. Probably thinks he's open-minded, but he's not, and if he isn't called out on this line of thinking, it'll only get reinforced as legitimate.

I am not going to weed through the discussion, at least now.

I will point out that Chinatown, Little Italy, etc all arose in direct response to racism. In San Francisco, for example Chinese Americans were forbidden to live elsewhere. In other cases it might not have been codified, but protection more or less dictated that people stay within their own ethnic groups.

Although there are historic Mexican areas, there are also many, many, many that have sprung up in the past 20 years and, now many other cultures are feeling threatened, with some legitimacy. There is a difference, albiet fine, between saying "I don't want them..." and saying "I don't want my culture/way of living overrun by others".

[DAZMCFC]

Wow, that doesn't just lend itself, that's blatent. I thought 'spade' died with my grandmother's generation.

Just because I don't like African-American as a term for black, doesn't mean I do like spade or coon or the n-word or any of the other perjoratives that folks use. This conversation is about whether "xxxxxx"-American is a divisive term or not, and if it's not divisive, then when is it appropriate. I think xxxxxx-American is a divisive term, but it certainly isn't a divisive as other perjoratives.

he wasn't being rascist you bellend. Spade in this context is a gardening tool. spade or shovel, arse or ass, faucett or tap. get the picture now.

[jiminski]

Don't want to talk about america directly as i do not know it as well as i know Britain and more specifically England and perhaps even more specifically: Southern England/London. Hopefully there can be some universal parallels for the original poster to draw upon.

Our multicultural experiment (i use the term 'experiment' to indicate official policy as opposed to the social reality which takes on an almost opposite character in both US and UK cases I am sure) takes on a slightly alternative face to the American Melting-pot ideal. We do not demand a pledge of allegiance or that incumbent nationalities relinquish their heritage. In fact we officially foster the precepts of 'difference' under one umbrella; tolerance of culture and diversity, creating a mosaic of national persona's as opposed to hegemonisation. This is, of course, perpetually questioned and re-evaluated both in terms of Government/constitutional legislation and on a micro-societal level; the man in the pub may feel much like Bedud does. "This is London not Londonistan!"

This brand of cultural integration leads to wavering epochs of understanding and cultural absorption. (in some cases influenced by the broader world community and America in particular) As such 'Black' culture is further down the line to integration than any other 'coloured' ethnic group. But this is predominantly regarding West Indian culture and not the later immigrants from Africa. (In fact there is some genuine antipathy between established West Indian and newer African Black peoples.) All will be refered to as Black and likely with a qualification of their specific origin, as all will hold some preconceived cultural peculiarity.

We refer to Pakistani and Indian english people as Asians (a vast improvement to the generic term 'Paki' which prevailed until fairly recently) Let me be clear: 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani, Kashmiri and Indian People as Asian. Not English Asian, Asian.

Is this because we do not perceive 'Asians' to be British? Well i can not speak for all but not in my case certainly; but in the best scenario it implies a degree of laissez faire, pragmatism regarding peoples rights to a heritage and its sanctity within the ever-changing 'indigenous' culture. It also acts to better describe someone in normal conversation and gives an instant repertoire of stereotypes to colour empathy in the dialogue. (Personally not all discrimination within conversation is racist; it is a normal tool and shortcut to comprehension) In the worst scenario it implies a determined separtion on the part of the 'dominant' culture on street level.

For my part, and to the background of this type of integration, i enjoy 2nd and 3rd generation English people of West Indians and Asian heritage supporting the West Indies, India Pakistan etc in Cricket. For me it is normal and adds to the wealth of cultural experience and vibrancy here.

Now saying this, we have an ex-England footballer of West Indian heritage called Ian Wright here; you could not find a more patriotic and staunchly English man in the rest of England. When i witness that it fills me with pride in the best of my culture and more than that bloody; awe at his specialness. Why? because in the face of the National front, racism and the nasty shitty little white people who welcomed him into our 'culture' on the micro-social level (Bedud down the pub) he still has the strength to love what hated him and spat on his father!

[bedub1]

Don't want to talk about america directly as i do not know it as well as i know Britain and more specifically England and perhaps even more specifically: Southern England/London. Hopefully there can be some universal parallels for the original poster to draw upon.

Our multicultural experiment (i use the term 'experiment' to indicate official policy as opposed to the social reality which takes on an almost opposite character in both US and UK cases I am sure) takes on a slightly alternative face to the American Melting-pot ideal. We do not demand a pledge of allegiance or that incumbent nationalities relinquish their heritage. In fact we officially foster the precepts of 'difference' under one umbrella; tolerance of culture and diversity, creating a mosaic of national persona's as opposed to hegemonisation. This is, of course, perpetually questioned and re-evaluated both in terms of Government/constitutional legislation and on a micro-societal level; the man in the pub may feel much like Bedud does. "This is London not Londonistan!"

This brand of cultural integration leads to wavering epochs of understanding and cultural absorption. (in some cases influenced by the broader world community and America in particular) As such 'Black' culture is further down the line to integration than any other 'coloured' ethnic group. But this is predominantly regarding West Indian culture and not the later immigrants from Africa. (In fact there is some genuine antipathy between established West Indian and newer African Black peoples.) All will be refered to as Black and likely with a qualification of their specific origin, as all will hold some preconceived cultural peculiarity.

We refer to Pakistani and Indian english people as Asians (a vast improvement to the generic term 'Paki' which prevailed until fairly recently) Let me be clear: 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani, Kashmiri and Indian People as Asian. Not English Asian, Asian.

Is this because we do not perceive 'Asians' to be British? Well i can not speak for all but not in my case certainly; but in the best scenario it implies a degree of laissez faire, pragmatism regarding peoples rights to a heritage and its sanctity within the ever-changing 'indigenous' culture. It also acts to better describe someone in normal conversation and gives an instant repertoire of stereotypes to colour empathy in the dialogue. (Personally not all discrimination within conversation is racist; it is a normal tool and shortcut to comprehension) In the worst scenario it implies a determined separtion on the part of the 'dominant' culture on street level.

For my part, and to the background of this type of integration, i enjoy 2nd and 3rd generation English people of West Indians and Asian heritage supporting the West Indies, India Pakistan etc in Cricket. For me it is normal and adds to the wealth of cultural experience and vibrancy here.

Now saying this, we have an ex-England footballer of West Indian heritage called Ian Wright here; you could not find a more patriotic and staunchly English man in the rest of England. When i witness that it fills me with pride in the best of my culture and more than that bloody; awe at his specialness. Why? because in the face of the National front, racism and the nasty shitty little white people who welcomed him into our 'culture' on the micro-social level (Bedud down the pub) he still has the strength to love what hated him and spat on his father!

I'm not mad at any of it. But if you love that guy named Ian Wright...what do you call him? English?

[thegreekdog]

I guess it's sort of like that in the US, but it depends. I would say that most African-Americans are Americans first (and second and third) more so than 2nd generation European Americans. For example, we rarely get an African-American rooting for an African nation in the World Cup or Olympics. But, I won't hesitate to root for Greece (if the US is out of competition). At the same time, there are certain ethnicities in the US that self-identify with ancestors (Irish, Italians, Greeks) and others that don't as much (Germans, English, French). I don't know if this is because the latter have been here, generally speaking, for a long period of time than the former.

I admittedly do not know too many second generation Chinese-, Korean-, Japanese-, Indiana-, Pakistani-Americans. But, I would imagine they, like Mexican-Americans, have more of tie to their home country.

I guess my point is the same as I made before - the farther away a group of people gets from their "home" country, the more likely they are to not self-identify. I imagine that my children would not self-identify as a Greek-American as my wife is some combination of German, Irish, English, and Austrian.

I think the term "African-American" has a different connotation and usage than, say, Italian-American.

[jiminski]

Don't want to talk about america directly as i do not know it as well as i know Britain and more specifically England and perhaps even more specifically: Southern England/London. Hopefully there can be some universal parallels for the original poster to draw upon.

Our multicultural experiment (i use the term 'experiment' to indicate official policy as opposed to the social reality which takes on an almost opposite character in both US and UK cases I am sure) takes on a slightly alternative face to the American Melting-pot ideal. We do not demand a pledge of allegiance or that incumbent nationalities relinquish their heritage. In fact we officially foster the precepts of 'difference' under one umbrella; tolerance of culture and diversity, creating a mosaic of national persona's as opposed to hegemonisation. This is, of course, perpetually questioned and re-evaluated both in terms of Government/constitutional legislation and on a micro-societal level; the man in the pub may feel much like Bedud does. "This is London not Londonistan!"

This brand of cultural integration leads to wavering epochs of understanding and cultural absorption. (in some cases influenced by the broader world community and America in particular) As such 'Black' culture is further down the line to integration than any other 'coloured' ethnic group. But this is predominantly regarding West Indian culture and not the later immigrants from Africa. (In fact there is some genuine antipathy between established West Indian and newer African Black peoples.) All will be refered to as Black and likely with a qualification of their specific origin, as all will hold some preconceived cultural peculiarity.

We refer to Pakistani and Indian english people as Asians (a vast improvement to the generic term 'Paki' which prevailed until fairly recently) Let me be clear: 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani, Kashmiri and Indian People as Asian. Not English Asian, Asian.

Is this because we do not perceive 'Asians' to be British? Well i can not speak for all but not in my case certainly; but in the best scenario it implies a degree of laissez faire, pragmatism regarding peoples rights to a heritage and its sanctity within the ever-changing 'indigenous' culture. It also acts to better describe someone in normal conversation and gives an instant repertoire of stereotypes to colour empathy in the dialogue. (Personally not all discrimination within conversation is racist; it is a normal tool and shortcut to comprehension) In the worst scenario it implies a determined separtion on the part of the 'dominant' culture on street level.

For my part, and to the background of this type of integration, i enjoy 2nd and 3rd generation English people of West Indians and Asian heritage supporting the West Indies, India Pakistan etc in Cricket. For me it is normal and adds to the wealth of cultural experience and vibrancy here.

Now saying this, we have an ex-England footballer of West Indian heritage called Ian Wright here; you could not find a more patriotic and staunchly English man in the rest of England. When i witness that it fills me with pride in the best of my culture and more than that bloody; awe at his specialness. Why? because in the face of the National front, racism and the nasty shitty little white people who welcomed him into our 'culture' on the micro-social level (Bedud down the pub) he still has the strength to love what hated him and spat on his father!

I'm not mad at any of it. But if you love that guy named Ian Wright...what do you call him? English?

I call him what he calls himself and that is English.but if i am discerning who he is to someone who can not recall i will say: "the black guy who scored all the goals for Arsenal"

Don't want to talk about america directly as i do not know it as well as i know Britain and more specifically England and perhaps even more specifically: Southern England/London. Hopefully there can be some universal parallels for the original poster to draw upon.

Our multicultural experiment (i use the term 'experiment' to indicate official policy as opposed to the social reality which takes on an almost opposite character in both US and UK cases I am sure) takes on a slightly alternative face to the American Melting-pot ideal. We do not demand a pledge of allegiance or that incumbent nationalities relinquish their heritage. In fact we officially foster the precepts of 'difference' under one umbrella; tolerance of culture and diversity, creating a mosaic of national persona's as opposed to hegemonisation. This is, of course, perpetually questioned and re-evaluated both in terms of Government/constitutional legislation and on a micro-societal level; the man in the pub may feel much like Bedud does. "This is London not Londonistan!"

This brand of cultural integration leads to wavering epochs of understanding and cultural absorption. (in some cases influenced by the broader world community and America in particular) As such 'Black' culture is further down the line to integration than any other 'coloured' ethnic group. But this is predominantly regarding West Indian culture and not the later immigrants from Africa. (In fact there is some genuine antipathy between established West Indian and newer African Black peoples.) All will be refered to as Black and likely with a qualification of their specific origin, as all will hold some preconceived cultural peculiarity.

We refer to Pakistani and Indian english people as Asians (a vast improvement to the generic term 'Paki' which prevailed until fairly recently) Let me be clear: 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani, Kashmiri and Indian People as Asian. Not English Asian, Asian.

Is this because we do not perceive 'Asians' to be British? Well i can not speak for all but not in my case certainly; but in the best scenario it implies a degree of laissez faire, pragmatism regarding peoples rights to a heritage and its sanctity within the ever-changing 'indigenous' culture. It also acts to better describe someone in normal conversation and gives an instant repertoire of stereotypes to colour empathy in the dialogue. (Personally not all discrimination within conversation is racist; it is a normal tool and shortcut to comprehension) In the worst scenario it implies a determined separtion on the part of the 'dominant' culture on street level.

For my part, and to the background of this type of integration, i enjoy 2nd and 3rd generation English people of West Indians and Asian heritage supporting the West Indies, India Pakistan etc in Cricket. For me it is normal and adds to the wealth of cultural experience and vibrancy here.

Now saying this, we have an ex-England footballer of West Indian heritage called Ian Wright here; you could not find a more patriotic and staunchly English man in the rest of England. When i witness that it fills me with pride in the best of my culture and more than that bloody; awe at his specialness. Why? because in the face of the National front, racism and the nasty shitty little white people who welcomed him into our 'culture' on the micro-social level (Bedud down the pub) he still has the strength to love what hated him and spat on his father!

I'm not mad at any of it. But if you love that guy named Ian Wright...what do you call him? English?

I call him what he calls himself and that is English. But if i am describing who he is to someone who can not recall, i will say: "the black guy who scored all the goals for Arsenal"

[PLAYER57832]

I think you are getting at a the same thing I was (?).

That is, that multiplicity of cultures adds to our whole. We learn from other people, other ways of viewing things. This is true within and between cultures.

In the US, there has always been a very uneasy mix. Although we like to talk of "melting pots" and so forth, the real truth is that many people came here not to meld, but to have their own piece of land where they could live by their rules without others "interfering". We see this most poignantly, most critically in religion. Religion and culture very much go together, but whereas religious freedom is protected, cultural freedom is not specifically. In fact, I think part of what bdub is arguing is that culture, too, should be a protected freedom.

This is an extremely complicated issue. One thing I will say, having grown up in CA, is that my experience is that Mexican Americans are differant from other groups. I have never met another group that came here and then turned around to insist that we learn their language, their culture instead of just accepting that they be allowed to do as they wish on their own. My father is himself an immigrant. He worked with folks who spoke only Spanish. At first, he went to lengths to try and teach them various English terms so he could communicate, mostly necessary work terms. He kept getting "no comprende, No comprende", so he though OK, maybe I am just not being clear enough.. and would simplify, but it soon became evident to him that it was not that they could not learn, it was that they did not want to learn English. They expected him, instead to learn Spanish. In frustration, he started speaking to them in his native tongue. Only then did they finally deign to learn English, from him. (but still not from other people). My father also helped them with citizenship issues, when they got amnesty under Reagan.

Also, my use of "Mexican-American" was specific. Lately, (past 20 years, that is), other Latino groups have taken similar attitudes, but before it was pretty much limited to Mexicans (nothing is 100% in humanity).

That is what makes the difference. Other groups came here, stuck to their own groups for comfort, protection initially and then actively went out to become "American".

Part of this is the time. In the past,many took it too far to the other side. My father, for example, remembered his cousins being teased when they began school not speaking English and that was part of why he refused to teach my siblings and I his native tongue. (I did learn it, later, but that is another story) My grandfather refused to teach my mother German. My husband can barely speak a few words of the languages his grandmothers spoke exclusively. Mexicans who came here, ironically, came when multiculturalism was seen as a benefit. There was a move toward bilingual education, etc. in reaction to the outright oppression many cultures experienced in the past.

So, in part, that Mexicans have a different attitude has to do with pure changing times. As far as that goes,it is natural. Part of it also has to do with the culture itself, however. That part is a bit more disturbing. However, I have made this too long already. I will stop there.

[DAZMCFC]

i'm a Scotland fan, but i loved seeing Ian Wright singing the national anthemn "God save the Queen". it brought shivvers to my spine. i very patriotic, i love to see every British person who wins a Gold medal at the Olympics stand up and be proud and belt out our national anthemn, no matter what colour or creed.