|
| Thread: Is Affirmative Action Another Word For Communism? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
posted January 25, 2004 05:32 PM |
|
|
3 votes (27%)
"Silence you capitalist pig!"
now its 4 votes
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 27, 2004 08:49 PM |
|
|
Why Is Affirmative Action Associated With America?
Why does it seem like affirmative action is more related to the U.S. than other countries?
While researching information on other countries I have found that each country has their own distinct set of ethnic populations. These ethnic populations seem to be more based on religious preferrence or geographical historical origin than skin color. In some countries the ethnic distinctions are characterized by social class.
Is affirmative action more associated with skin color or ethnicity? Why does america go so far as to be so specific? Why the term, "African-American", is used to characterize someone as having a dark-skinned pigmentation is beyond my scope of understanding. It cannot be true that all of those sorts of people come from Africa. In fact some of those people are born right here in the country. If they are born here, why then, do we attach the "african" designation to the front of their true birth place designation? Is this some sort of sick christian generalization of dark-skinned people? And another thing, I took my first art class in the 1st grade of public education and I remember hearing the word, "black-person". I thought to myself, "That's not black, it's more of a brownish color". I also told myself, "I'm not white. My skin looks more closely to a pink or peach color." I just don't understand this american skin-color term-designation that somehow links a person to the african continent.
Does anyone have any ideas to what we americans could possibly do to combat these verbal discrepancies? Perhaps it is more than just a spoken fopah. Perhaps it is some kind of sick indoctrination of the very young in this country resulting from the racial biggotry that was in-grained in their parents. I'm open for suggestions concerning how to eliminate it but it seems like Wolfman and Shadowcaster's argument about unfair advantages makes sense. Check out some of Carl Cohen's thoughts concerning discrimination and affirmative action. He wrote a book called: Naked Racial Preferrence(the case against affirmative action)
Some of this can be read online at
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu
As for Bort's description of the bright side of affirmative action in a college setting, I think that's great. It seems like we have an interesting start to combatting economic racial inequality but I also feel we still have a lot of work to do.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
posted January 27, 2004 09:20 PM |
|
|
First of all, the whole black/white thing wasn't us, it's been around since the days of Rome. Second, in regards to the title "African American": black americans are called by that because they choose to be. In fact I asked a "African American" this question when I was younger and he said it had to do with pride of heritage. Don't ask anyone though because that knowledge came at the cost of me being viewed as a racist by the entire 8th grade class of 1995. And another point: this isn't the sixties, OK? Every white male isn't a racist, sexist, pig anymore. Alright? It's not as big of a deal as it was 40 years ago. I think that this continuation of all of this crap is creating a greater cultural gap. Face it, everyone's equal in this day and age. If you don't get into college, don't use racism or sexism as a crutch.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 27, 2004 09:53 PM |
|
|
Consis:
In regards to it being isolated to America, I think in some respects a similar system operates in this country's politics. Some parties (usually the big 2 here) operate a system of promoting women and/or ethnic minorities for certain "safe" seats (ie the party putting the person forward has such a majority there it'd be next to impossible not to win) in order to fufill certain goals in reference to quotas in those categories. I'm not sure of the exact details, but it is comparable with the type of what is sometimes called "positive discrimination" here. I don't know much about the University system and it's ways of operation to say if our education matches yours in this respect.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 27, 2004 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Face it, everyone's equal in this day and age. If you don't get into college, don't use racism or sexism as a crutch.
No, that's not true. European-Americans ( ) still have a disproportionate amount of economic and social privilage. It starts well before college and continues throughout life. It's an inheritance from the days of institutional racism. Affirmative action is the attempt to redistribute that privilage, in the case of college through education.
I'm in college and a really good one at that. Why? My parents could afford to send me to a college-prep high school. They could afford to live in an area with a good parochial grammar school. They could afford the resources to teach me to read early. They had access to the best child-care information. Why? Because both of them went to college. Why? The list goes onward and backward into history...The end result is that I am here, getting an education to prepare me for life at a certain social-economic level. Am I more deserving of that education than the woman who dropped out of a lousy public high school to work a minimum-wage job, who lived in a low-income/high-crime area, whose parents did the best they could but lacked access to the best resources because they were from an impoverished background as well? Regardless of her personal ability, she didn't have a chance at college whereas I was fast-tracked here, also regardless of my personal ability.
People are equal in theory, but our society still does not treat them that way. Affirmative action is an imperfect system, but it's one attempt to even a very rough playing field.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 28, 2004 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I voted "Yes" simply because I am a victim of Affirmative Action. God Forsaken Virginia Tech and their low miority student population.
I know what you're saying, but I originally had a scholarship until it came time to close registration, and my scholarship was revoked. Now why would they do that right around the time to close registration? Hmmm. Did they have too many people with music scholarships? I doubt it.
Quote:
Face it, everyone's equal in this day and age. If you don't get into college, don't use racism or sexism as a crutch.
But racism or sexism can be used as a crutch if you don't get a scholarship? Lemme guess -- "That's different!"
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
(The change in scholarship status might have a little to do with a certain Governor Gilmore ascribing to the "tax less, spend more" philosophy that has led to a budget crisis in Virginia with the state universities being especially hard hit. Well, no, couldn't have anything to do with lack of funds. Must be affirmative action.)
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 28, 2004 10:42 PM |
|
|
Aquaman, I agree that racist individuals, in terms of pure numbers, are probably fewer than before the CRM. I also agree that there is growing resentment in the most powerful class -- white males. What mystifies me is that people fail to realize the sheer statistical numbers, in terms of employment, income, college enrollments, and practically every other affected area of society, suggest that white males are stillthe most powerful class.
So while a white male individual might feel like somebody is getting an unfair edge over him, in reality what might actually be happening is that the white male is simply losing an unfair edge he's had all along.
Here is only one example. There are now a slightly larger number of females than males entering freshman law classes, beginning with my class back in 1986. Females tend to score about the same or slightly higher in their law school exams, and rank with the males in a good mix, again about the same. I am not sure about the bar exam scores and have no current data.
However, despite this data, female attorneys to this day make 60 cents for every dollar brought in by a male attorney. That is today's news my friend. This is an example of how institutionalized the favoritism is.
I have personally experienced a rift in income, have witnessed it in those around me, and have further seen first-hand a repeated reluctance to advance females to higher-level positions even in the face of clear superiority of skill. It is real, and those who engage in it are utterly blind to it. The decisionmakers always find a way to go with who and what they know, who and what they are most comfortable with, who and what they most closely idenfity with. It is tribalsim at its very worst, and it is very, very real. I would hazard to say that it plays a role in the fact that my husband makes almost three times as much as I do, despite that he has only been in the practice four years longer, and despite that he (and some others) constantly tell me how much smarter I am than he is.
If this "going with what you know" phenomenon has that much influence in the gender arena, you can just bet it is still alive and kicking in the racial arena.
The reason people of color identify themselves as such is a matter of national pride. Nations used to be made up of ethnic identities. Only relatively recently, in terms of human history, has the organic, ethnic "nation" been replaced by the politically-forged "nation-state." The form of nationalism exhibited by constituents of "nation-states" is called "patriotism." The emotional allegiance that I, as an American Indian, feel toward my Indian kin, is a completely universal, natural phenomenon. It is no less understandable than your feelings of "patriotism."
Whereas all your emotional investitures in allegiance arise from your affiliation with the nation-state called the "United States," my emotional investitures arise both from that affiliation, andfrom my natural, ethnic origins, which inspire the same nationalistic feelings of allegiance, bonds, common experiences, and emotional ties as your feelings of patriotism. The same is true of African Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican Americans, and all others who continue to feel strong ties with their heritage.
Both these manifestations of emotional loyalty are as natural as breathing. One, however, is much more ancient, and it should come as no surprise that there is a degree of resentment toward the dominant nation-state, when its institutions at once try to deny a significant part of your personal identity and experience, while at the same time continuing to deny you an equal shot at the hoop.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 29, 2004 03:56 AM |
|
|
A Self Defining Moment
Ok first of all Peacemaker deserves a quality point for that last post. I'd say it's more closely in competition with the top 2% of all posts that I have seen. Excellent post and I agree very much so. It's times like this that your education and background serve you well. Best post I've seen in any forum.
Personally, I claim no affiliation to any ancient people from anywhere. I am neither proud nor have anything in common with the people from Ireland. I was born in America and I like to think more about the future when pondering what to be proud of. I think my son and daughters will, no doubt, have questions about us as their parents but I think it will more than likely stop there. Generational pride is such a foreign concept to me. I really don't understand this sense of pride in a person so far from one's current lineage. I don't doubt it exists nor do I doubt its importance. For me, it simply is an unknown concept. I care about my dad and his dad and their families but beyond that is an absence of emotion. According to my geneology I'm related to a Welsch General on my father's side but I certainly don't feel like going to some English military school to learn the ways of ancient english military because of this affiliation. I mean no disrespect to any other person who does regard a high sense of pride in their people's history. For example, I totally feel like I understand the presence of pride for an American Indian. Just look at how their culture was. I guess I'm just thinking out loud. Sorry if this is extemporaneous information. If someone tells me I should delete this post, then I'll do so as it is mostly a response to the great post from Peacemaker. Perhaps this is what some people may think of us Americans but it is truly how I feel.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 29, 2004 04:50 PM |
|
|
Gee Consis. Thanks so much for your very kind words on my post.
Frankly I think this has turned to a fascinating comparative discussion on the ideas of patriotism and nationalism. I find your account of your feelings on this intriguing, informative and educational. I wish others would chime in and express their feelings about their lineal, national or patriotic affiliations. I believe that an understanding of these various manifestations might be pivotal to an understanding of racism, reverse discrimination, and all related topics.
We might want to also throw into the mix considerations of cultural differences, which usually go unnoticed in this discussion which, in this country, has for so long been focused primarily on skin color.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 29, 2004 05:46 PM |
|
|
Consis's post expresses my feelings of heritage (or lack thereof) very well. I don't have anything to add, but I'll say some extra stuff anyway...My divorce from my Scots-Irish and Austrian "roots" is pretty complete. Even my last name(s) doesn't reflect my heritage very well, since it got changed on both sides very recently -- once to deliberately cover up national origin. The only thing I know for sure about my distant ancestors is their ability to reproduce, and I don't believe in honoring people for that alone. The bulk of the stories passed down about my non-distant ancestors, particularly on the Austrian side, do not inspire pride, to say the least.  So, the reverence for fore-fathers so prevalant in other cultures is alien to me. I'm just American -- although I take more pride in being Minnesotan.
Racially, I use "European-American" because it matches the other continential-Americans.  My ancestors aren't from the Caucas Mountains, and I'm more bluish-pink than white, so European-American also makes the most sense.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted January 29, 2004 08:08 PM |
|
|
First of all, I don’t like the assumption you’ve made in the title of this thread “Is affirmative action another word for communism?”, implying that communism is bad, but that’s another topic.
I strongly support affirmative action (or positive discrimination, as we call it). There’s affirmative action in my country (Macedonia) in every public field, concerning ethnic minorities, starting from colleges, public administration, local government, military, police, courts... I belong to the ethnic majority (Macedonian) and support affirmative action, as a way to provide more righteous presence of all ethnic groups in the public sphere, because it’s clear that the dominant group has the power to discriminate minorities in many areas. In most cases, employers would employ people with who they most closely identify. Sadly, but true.
However, there’s this crucial condition when talking about affirmative action. Only candidates with the same or nearly the same qualities should be discriminated on this basis. Otherwise it turns into ruthless oppression of the majority. And as unreal as it sounds, there have been such cases in my country.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 29, 2004 11:46 PM |
|
|
The is really a good discussion, and I think very important. I have some comments on the issues of "patriotism" and "nationalism" that I think should be further pointed out.
After decades of personal experience (much of it negative) combined with international and indigenous studies (sought largely out of frustration over the aforementioned personal experience), I have tended to align myself with certain theories regarding international law and the historical development of the currently dominant nation-state system.
The emergence of the nation-state, which I described in a post above here, required in turn the replacement of organic allegiance to one's ethnicity (nationalism) with an allegiance to one's nation-state (patriotism). This was necessary because nation-states required the allegiance of their constituencies in order to keep from breaking apart. Societal leaders in nation-states therefore began to engage in the deliberate re-indoctrination of national allegiants, fostering programs of social identity reform to eradicate nationalism and replace it with patriotism.
A couple of you have now spoken to the profound psychological impact of this process as it has occurred in the United States. Each new immigrant wave was met with a blast of anti-whoever discrimination (Irish, Italian, etc.) as part of the established mentality to erase one's national heritage from the emotional blackboard of their beings and become nothing more than "American."
The social presure to achive this eradication of national ties was immense for decades, and the pressure still presents itself in such questions as "why still identify oneself as African-American?" Manifestations of this can be illustrated by the common practice of the changing of names clearly indicating ethnic origin to eliminate telltale signs of ethnic origin. This also went on for decades. I am married to a man of Ukranian-Jewish descent who has a homogonized last name. He doesn't even know what the original name was, but you can bet it ended with "ski" or some other such slavic suffix.
For those of you who are multi-generational Americans, you now experience that eradication in its complete form. This is why you feel no significant national ties. Personally, I think it is very sad. But then that's just my personal view on this subject.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 12:10 AM |
|
|
I can relate to the multi-generational Americanism that can cause one to forget one's heritage. Both sides of my family travelled over to America while it was still in the colony stages of development. My name has been changed from a German last name to a number in the English language. While each name bears a resemblance to the last, my family's current last name has lost its German roots. My parent's barely remember where we are from.
Also, besides the losing of national roots, many Americans have roots from too many countries to count, and therefore nationalism would be as hard to keep up with for them as their taxes for some. Many give up on trying to keep up with lineage, because, in today's society, the idea of nationalism plays second fiddle to many other, seemingly more important, ideals. At least from what I've seen.
____________
>_>
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 12:15 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 29 Jan 2004
|
Question To Any Citizen Of Macedonia
Svarog,
I don't know any other Heroes Community members who hail from that country so this question is mainly directed towards you.
Could you please give us some information concerning the Albanian insurgence in your country? As I look at the Macedonian ethnic groups, the numbers are as follows:
Macedonian = 64.2%
Albanian = 25.2%
Turkish = 3.8%
Roma = 2.7%
Serb = 1.8%
These numbers clearly support your statement of which ethnicity is in the majority.
Dominant religions of your country are:
Macedonian Orthodox = 67%
Muslim = 30%
I was just wondering how affirmative action has played a role in a country with these statistics. I am also asking any of that country's citizens for some enlightement on what kind of role Affirmative Action or Communism might play in that kind of country.
I would also like to point out the reason why I started a thread called: "Is Affirmative Action Another Word For Communism?". The reason is simple. I wanted a topic that would bring a good debate with plenty of people arguing and supporting one side or the other or both.
If I had tried to start a topic called: "Is affirmative action anoter word for allowing people the equal right to a job?" then not so many people would respond because it's a fairly true statement and plus some would find it boring. I specifically and intentionally targeted an extreme difference in the field of economic theories so that we might attract many people's opinions as opposed to only a few, in which case the thread would totally lack enthusiasm. I didn't start the thread to insult anyone rather I deliberately looked for a question with a good wide range for possible answers so as to get as many people involved as possible.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 04:55 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure exactly why Communism was drug into this Affirative Action debate, I can see how some things are the same as in Communism but not enough to say it is a step toward Communism in the US. I say it's more racism than Communism.
Svarog -
I understand where you are comming from when you say that Communism is not bad, and you're right. On paper, Communism is the best system. In practice it is terrible. Soviet Union is a great example, best example I could think of.
I still can't figure out exactly where Peacemaker is coming from with the nationalism and patriotism stuff.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 05:37 AM |
|
|
American Patriotism vs. American Nationalism
I’m not an American and I don’t feel competent enough to comment on American national identity, but my opinion is that there’s an American “national” (not patriotic) identity in emergence. You, Peacemaker, say that national identity is erased from immigrants in favor of “American patriotism”. I have the impression it’s more “nationalism” than “patriotism”. Whatever it is (I’m not an expert), there’s some sort of “silent assimilation” at work here, and I agree with you that it’s sad. In most cases immigrants tend to “fit in” as fast as they can by facilitating this process of voluntarily assimilation. Concerning this, I think the economical might of America is more important than the cultural might. People want to get better jobs by learning the language, they talk American, act American, live American. They teach their kids primarily English in order to have no problems in school, and the next generation they are all American.
Affirmative Action in Macedonia
Well, you surprise me again, Consis. Are you planning to move here or smth? 
“Could you please give us some information concerning the Albanian insurgence in your country?”
Another very very complex issue. I’ll be as short and clear as I can.
Albanian nationalism has always been strong, both here and in Kosovo, in Serbia and Montenegro, even Greece. This is further increased because Albanians were the ethnic group which was least developed economically and educationally of the peoples of former Yugoslavia. This was mostly the governments fault, since it didn’t bother to intervene in areas other than their own national.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, you know what happened with Kosovo. We expected that the winds of war won’t blow in Macedonia, but we were wrong. The wave of nationalism spread from Kosovo, the Kosovo-Macedonia border wasn’t controlled from NATO as it should’ve been and the conflict broke out (2001).
Odd thing to happen, if you know that Albanian parties were represented in the Parliament as well as the government, Ministries were run by Albanians, local government also. There were Albanian highschools and even a private college on Albanian language. There were quotas on the 2 state universities for Albanian students. All the rights guaranteed by the international conventions were granted. In other words (unlike most Westerners think), totally different from the situation with Kosovo. It’s an enigma to this day why the conflict broke out and whose fault it is. However a peace agreement was reached, which I’m very proud of, cus we didn’t let the war to spread like in other countries from former Yugoslavia. What Macedonia got with the agreement was use of Albanian in the Parlament, state University on Albanian language, affirmative action in the security forces and public administration. I support all these rights, but did war really have to happen in a democratic country?
Affirmative action has provided ethnic minorities with more proportional participation in the public sphere, which is of course more fair.
Under the pressure from the international community, there have been cases where affirmative action has been abused. Jobs are given to non-qualified candidates. At the university, Macedonian students enter the quotas with over 90 points, while Albanians with less than 50. I’m afraid percentages are starting to play bigger role than quality and knowledge.
“…some enlightement on what kind of role Affirmative Action or Communism might play in that kind of country.”
I cannot see how Communism is related with the national composition of Macedonia. For true Communists, all people are equal, no matter the color, gender or ethnicity. Macedonia was a socialistic society as part of former Yugoslavia, not anymore. Communism (or socialism, more precisely) is a matter of social and economical issues, not national ones. I explained about Socialism in the “Is America stupid” thread, as you asked.
One more thing. Me being a socialist has nothing to do with the place where I come from. There are socialists all over the world, even in US. At the moment in Macedonia 90% of the population don’t want socialism back.(unfortunately )
Communism-good or bad? I’ll open a new thread in the next days, ok?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 08:58 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 30 Jan 2004
|
Fascinating Post Once Again Svarog
Quote:
What Macedonia got with the agreement was use of Albanian in the Parlament, state University on Albanian language, affirmative action in the security forces and public administration. Affirmative action has provided ethnic minorities with more proportional participation in the public sphere, which is of course more fair. Under the pressure from the international community, there have been cases where affirmative action has been abused. Jobs are given to non-qualified candidates. At the university, Macedonian students enter the quotas with over 90 points, while Albanians with less than 50. I’m afraid percentages are starting to play bigger role than quality and knowledge.
For true Communists, all people are equal, no matter the color, gender or ethnicity. Macedonia was a socialistic society as part of former Yugoslavia, not anymore. Communism (or socialism, more precisely) is a matter of social and economical issues, not national ones.
Well it seems Affirmative action is not so american after all. Perhaps it is something the world is embracing. As Svarog has pointed out his country experiences affirmative action of a different kind. The affirmative action in his country wasn't started through an oppression of a people with a different skin color, rather it was through an oppression of a people of different geographical background and language inheritance. As Bort said it helps a great deal in a college setting but as many others have said it still needs a great deal of reform to make it a more perfect concept.
Svarog also pointed out that he believes Communism to be described, more precisely, as Socialism. (interesting concept though the english dictionary would disagree)
Svarog, absolutely fascinating. I must tell you that some of us americans don't get the local scoop on foreign affairs as often as we'd like to. Hearing about what is happening over seas from our nation's leaders is one thing but to hear it straight from a Macedonian citizen in such detail is quite the treat indeed! Very kind of you to tell us what you know.
You may think it's very boring to you because you live there but here in america your post is very helpful. General Wesley Clark was the NATO commander for the operation that de-throaned Milosevic. Milosevic is currently being held trial under an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. General Wesley Clark is running for president at the moment. You may not know it but your post could become an influencial piece of information in the election of Clark.
As for my question on the Albanian insurgence I knew you could give a better perspective than any of us americans looking online or in a book somewhere.
I just love this new age we are in. Tell me how I could have gotten that information from you had the internet not yet existed? I would have had to be some kind of foreign diplomat or something. And you, so far from america, are so willing to offer what you know for free. Thankyou. I wonder how the world will evolve from where it is today.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted January 30, 2004 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I still can't figure out exactly where Peacemaker is coming from with the nationalism and patriotism stuff.
LOL if I can pry my seven-year-old away from NeverWinterNights long enough to get more than a few words in edgewise, then I'll expand on the relationship I perceive between the topic of this thread and these phenomena.
More to follow ---
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 01, 2004 01:17 AM |
|
|
Okay. The seven-year-old is now elsewhere.
"Patriotism" is a more recent phenomenon that was manufactured to take the place of the organically occurring "nationalism" -- the naturally-arising feelings of association with one's tribe. We are all tribals originally, be the tribe Germanic, Cherokee, Serb or Croat, Palestinian, or whatnot.
Consis, one of the reasons you find the term "affirmative action" associated so strongly with the United States is because that's where the term originated. Not the concept necessarily, but the term. This country (US) has embarked on an experiment of the ultimate nation-state status: It has no roots in any one nation (save perhaps the UK, from which it broke deliberately during the late 18th century), but has since advertized itself as the one place where all can come and be free.
As I stated before, by their very nature nation-states (such as the US) have to implant some kind of mechanism in their constituents in order to foster loyalty in the place of "nationalsim." Here in the US, our Pride is based on the concept of freedoms of every sort. So American patriotism is founded on that basic ideal.
However, segregation (lingering from slavery in its most extreme form) in this country ran counter to that basic tenet of American society from its inception. It was a factor so divisive that it led to our only Civil War, 1861 to 1865. The abolition of slavery still did not solve the problem of segregation; the Jim Crow laws basically perpetuated inequality in the status of African Americans until the Civil Rights Movement finally took the issue on.
So what does this all have to do with nationalism? Well, in the United States this a most complicated issue. First of all, the patronage requested of all citizens has been perpetually interrupted by unequal rights. While many of you believe there is no such inequalilty, I implore you to look to bort's magnificent post as an example of why there still is. African Americans, and all other minorities for that matter, still have a hard time consolidating their loyalties toward a country that pays lip service to total freedom, while the actual mechanisms and infrastructure of the county do not play that freedom out. Most people see everyone as equal; yet when you get to the day-to-day operations in life, favoritism continues to place people who are somewhat alien to the movers and shakers at an inherent disadvantage.
So you have an accentuated focus on the lingering nationalism to one's tribe, where things were more equal, people were more highly regarded in practice than they are in the dominant society, and well, it all just felt (and feels) more comfortable.
The bottom line is this: The dominant society cannot expect its individuals to relinquish their previous national loyalties unless and until the playing field is actually, finally levelled. This, of course, is debatably impossible. I tend to think it is not impossible, just very difficult to achieve.
One of the reasons is that there is a distinct cultural presence of the dominant American society, of which most of its constituents are largely unaware. The dominant American society tends to think itself not as a "culture," but as the pinnacle of human development, with everyone around it just scratching to catch up. Not everyone sees it this way, however. Other cultures think themselves every bit as legitimate as the American society percieves itself, and resent the American self-perpection of superiority.
Americans have decided for the rest of the world, automatically, that free-market capitalism is the only viable economic route to take. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The real problem is that in exporting American capitalism, we in turn export a number of cultural elements along with it -- many of which are not compatible with the cultures into which we export capitalism. We cannot see this because we are too close to it.
But if we want to export capitalism into the Middle East, for instance, then the export needs to be of the structure itself, not the actual franchise. For instance, a "McDonalds" appearing in the middle of Damascus would probably draw firebombs, because of the innemsely negative associations with the symbolism of the American Icon. What if capitalism were allowed to manifest there as "Syriaburger?" Or better yet, the more culturally compatible idea of Middle Eastern food?
Similarly, Americans tend to be blind to the difference that may attach to skin color, beyond the mere factor of skin color itself. Nationalism persists not because of skin color, but because skin color is one of many factors that people tend to mutually identify with -- one meets a person of similar skin color, chances are they are going to like the same food, speak the same language, practice the same religion, read the same books, and adhere to the same general world-view. This is as true for White people as it is for any minority. We ALL play favorites and the whole trajectory here is to become aware enough to stop doing that. But it's much trickier than anyone gives it credit for being, and it continues to happen, keeping the playing field illevel. Too much attention has been placed on skin color here only because of the slavery history. The emphasis has been on "black versus white" from the beginnning, when in fact the issue is so much more complex than that, encompassing enormous cultural ramifications.
So, nationalism lingers in the face of patriotism for these enormously complex cultural reasons, far beyond mere skin color. We would all do ourselves a great service by devising ways to allow for the cultrual differences here in the name of individual freedom, while at the same time preserving a common economic system. But at the outset, those cultural differences need to be acknowledged and understood before that will happen. Furthermore, our international policies need to take into consideration that although we may perceive ourselves as the pinnacle of human development, our economic exportees may not agree with that assessment.
For more information on this topic, I encourage all of you to google the term "neoliberalism" which if you read up on it will gain you a better understanding of what might actually be going wrong with this whole process.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 03:17 AM |
|
|
The emphasis has been on "black versus white" from the beginning, when in fact the issue is so much more complex than that, encompassing enormous cultural ramifications.
This confirms my theory of a “white American nationalism” in emergence - a tribe of White Americans. I don’t mean this as smth negative, but as the feelings ordinary Americans have. “American Patriotism” is common in both black and white community, but there are obvious differences between these communities. This is the reason why a universal “American nationalism” hasn’t emerged, encompasing both Blacks and Whites. It’s easy for different ethnic immigrant groups to merge with and accept the “White American nationalism”, but it is not the case with Black people even though they have been around for a lot longer than the immigrants.
“The dominant American society tends to think itself not as a "culture," but as the pinnacle of human development, with everyone around it just scratching to catch up. Not everyone sees it this way, however. Other cultures think themselves every bit as legitimate as the American society perceives itself, and resent the American self-perpection of superiority.”
I liked this formulation so much, I couldn’t resist a copy/paste.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
