View Poll Results: Is it wrong to refer to themselves as any of the following?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, its fine to be refered to as listed

    18 56.25%
  • Yes, its wrong to be refered to as listed

    0 0%
  • No, I have neve expressed disapproval toward these designations

    6 18.75%
  • Yes, I have expressed disapproval toward these designations

    7 21.88%
  • No, I'm fine "-American" in these cases

    7 21.88%
  • Yes, its wrong to add "-American" in these cases

    2 6.25%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 108

Thread: Another question about race

  1. #71
    Professor
    Un biased's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    05-30-16 @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,642

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Jewish is an ethnicity as well.
    As I said to another poster it is a ethnicity since ethnicity is a general and broad term . I did not say it was not , but since its a religious distinction it should not have America at the end .
    Guinea pigs are amazing furry creatures !!

  2. #72
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    Actually, no... it doesn't imply that at all.
    Really? What does mother-in-law or right-of-way imply?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #73
    Professor
    Un biased's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    05-30-16 @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,642

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    When I read books, newspapers and personal journals and diaries pre WW ll and going back to the early 1800's, Germans who were Jews were just referred to as German-Jews. But never saw German-Catholic or German-Lutheran ever being being used.

    Until the mid 1970's only first generation Americans used the hyphenated-American when referring to themselves. The next generation were just Americans.
    I don't see the point its still not a indicator of origin . 1970 is when people would use the terms since it was politically correct at the time to refer to people as Blank Americans . I'm not one to speak about Germany since this is a thread about hyphenation in America ( This thread has been derailed enough already ).
    Guinea pigs are amazing furry creatures !!

  4. #74
    Professor
    Un biased's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    05-30-16 @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,642

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Such ignorance. Are you still in high school or something?

    Post diaspora Jewish communities kept to themselves for the most part, did not proselytize to gain converts,and dna studies have revealed the entire Jewish community to be very closely linked genetically.They are an ethicity in every sense of the word unlike various other religions which spread through various ethnicities by converts.

    You should be embarrassed to be saying such idiotic things.
    I did say it was a ethnicity thanks again for replacing and adding to what I said and misrepresenting my original post and taking no forethought in the fact it is about America's hyphenated use of the word . Of course they are since as said before it is a general and broad term .
    Guinea pigs are amazing furry creatures !!

  5. #75
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    The fact that such a huge portion of people all understand it the same way really negates that. Words mean things. I mean, I suppose you could ask someone to define how they're using each word each time they speak, but really, if someone is using words in a way no one understands them, that's more their issue than anyone else's.
    Words do not always mean the same the exact same thing to the same people. People split hairs over "exact" meanings of words all the time. I remember as kids my cousin and I got into a debate over the difference between a movie and a show. If I MEANT movie, just because technically show better applies a live theatrical performance doesn't change what I meant. Likewise, someone calling themselves Indian or even Indian-American within the context of a discussion on their South Asian ethnicity doesn't mean they intended to in some way minimize their American citizenship, only they it might sound like it to English majors or people on a PC kick who probably know thats not what they meant to imply anyway.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  6. #76
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I'm not even a little bit surprised to hear that Americans were more truly patriotic is bygone days and that the number is decreasing in today's "I, Me, Mine" society.

    And understand that I'm not trying to fill a quota so even if it were shown that only 1% of some demographic were Veterans it wouldn't really sway me.
    I don't think you can draw that conclusion that somehow older folks are more patriotic. Could you presume that people who served in the military gained some health benefit and as a result live longer, perhaps.

    I reject the idea that someone in the military is somehow more patriotic than someone else. Server in combat? Perhaps then you are, but most in the military don't serve in combat.

  7. #77
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    In most contexts it's harmless. In instances requiring greater precision or greater emphasis on citizenship, the practice can be unhelpful.

    I'm a mutt, and the issue doesn't arise, with one exception. I recognize that despotic and criminal nature of the War of Northern Aggression, and I reject the detestable Lincoln Myth. So sometimes people who seem to think that I'm over 150 years old call me a Confederate.
    You know, calling it 'the War of Northern Aggression' makes you sound like a frenzied nut, whether or not your position is valid. You can hold the same position, that the Union essentially conquered and forced the Confederacy to remain a part of the USA, while still calling it the Civil War.

  8. #78
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    I don't think you can draw that conclusion that somehow older folks are more patriotic. Could you presume that people who served in the military gained some health benefit and as a result live longer, perhaps.
    While, again, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that older people are/were more patriotic or to see some data that might suggest it in a circumstantial way, I agree that it isn't a clear cut conclusion.

    I reject the idea that someone in the military is somehow more patriotic than someone else. Server in combat? Perhaps then you are, but most in the military don't serve in combat.
    There's a saying that a "Veteran is someone who, at one point, wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America for any amount of up to and including their life."

    That's a pretty firm commitment, and it's one that every Veteran makes regardless of the period or nature of their service.

    I don't fault any Veteran for not actually having been deployed to combat.

    There are plenty of Veterans walking the street today, and probably more than a few who are currently planted in Arlington, for whom actually going to war at some point over the course of their enlistment was the last thing on their minds when they went to bed on the evening of September 10th 2001.

    What's operative to me is the willingness to serve. The manner in which a Veteran is ultimately called to serve is completely out of their hands, to a greater or lesser degree.

    I'd agree with you that there is something special about a young man or woman who willingly volunteers to serve during wartime, or, in times past, something special about those who answered the call when their government pulled their name from a hat, because many found any and every excuse to abdicate their responsibility to defend this nation.

    But I think those Veterans are special among a group of people, the larger community of Veterans, who are already special in their own right.

    You're welcome to disagree and to object vocally, just make sure you than a Veteran for defending, or for at the least standing ready to defend, your right to do so.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  9. #79
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    You know, calling it 'the War of Northern Aggression' makes you sound like a frenzied nut, whether or not your position is valid. You can hold the same position, that the Union essentially conquered and forced the Confederacy to remain a part of the USA, while still calling it the Civil War.
    You don't really know what a civil war is, do you? That was a term misapplied to disguise our country's war of conquest against the Confederacy. A civil war would have been the case had both sides been trying to assume control of the entirety of the States. Calling the WoNa, or War Between the States, to use a more sanitized term, was no mare a civil war than the American Revolution was an English Civil War.


    Here's a quick quote on the topic:

    Many people refuse to look at the truth, because they want to believe their government is benign. The language manipulation is also a barrier to "going outside the Matrix." The United States never had a Civil War, for example. By definition, such a war means an insurgent power attempts to seize the controls and institutions of government. In Lincoln's War (a very bloody one, at that, and one that was patently illegal), the South seceded because the North acted in gross violation of the Constitution. The South had its own government at the time that Lincoln's forces invaded it. So, it wasn't a civil war. Fiction writers posing as historians call it that to serve an agenda.

    Now, here's a kicker for you. Read the autobiography of General Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, he was the Union General who defeated the South and he was the US President who succeeded Lincoln's hapless VP. Not once did Grant use the phrase "civil war." He called it "the war between the states." This is an important distinction.
    http://www.mindconnection.com/books/...enttoldyou.htm
    Last edited by Oftencold; 12-11-13 at 11:29 AM.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  10. #80
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    You don't really know what a civil war is, do you? That was a term misapplied to disguise our country's war of conquest against the Confederacy. A civil war would have been the case had both sides been trying to assume control of the entirety of the States. Calling the WoNa, or War Between the States, to use a more sanitized term, was no mare a civil war than the American Revolution was an English Civil War.


    Here's a quick quote on the topic:



    Book Review of Lies the Government Told You
    Actually, believe it or not, I agree with you: That's a pretty good point.

    Even so, the 'War of Northern Aggression' is just bound to cause problems, and not bring anyone over to your side. Maybe War Between the States would be better?


    Tangentially -- speaking of misnamed wars, living in Britain, everyone calls the American Revolution the American War of Independence, which in my opinion makes more sense -- for largely the same reason you've stated: A revolution is a popular uprising against the government leading to regime change, not secession. The British colonists who fought against London wanted independence, and to become a people, not to change the regime in London.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •