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 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 108

Thread: Another question about race

  1. #81
    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
    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.
    It might be a better term if this weren't a point of contention for me. Lincoln to me is the despotic example remade in a saintly guise that makes all sorts of government tyranny justifiable in many minds.

    Obviously Slavery was a great evil. Lincoln's war just had very little to do with abolishing it. That's why Slavery wasn't abolished in the Union until near the end of the war. Lincoln's generals certainly were often adamant in stating they weren't fighting to end Slavery. Many were patently, rabidly, racist. Lincoln gives us the principle that almost any government act, including massive warfare may be justified if attached public sentiment for procuring freedom for a selected group. ("Yes" to free the French for instance, but not to free the European Jews, or millions of burka clad women. "Yes" to free the Iraqis, but not to free the Nigerians.)

    I'd go on, and I have elsewhere, but it's not really germane to the thread topic.

    I use the term "War of Northern Aggression" as a personal protest against the fake history that victims of the public school system carry about in their heads. "War Between the States," might be correct, but it has less of an indictment about it. Besides, I don't expect to convince most people one way or another.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  2. #82
    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
    It might be a better term if this weren't a point of contention for me. Lincoln to me is the despotic example remade in a saintly guise that makes all sorts of government tyranny justifiable in many minds.

    Obviously Slavery was a great evil. Lincoln's war just had very little to do with abolishing it. That's why Slavery wasn't abolished in the Union until near the end of the war. Lincoln's generals certainly were often adamant in stating they weren't fighting to end Slavery. Many were patently, rabidly, racist. Lincoln gives us the principle that almost any government act, including massive warfare may be justified if attached public sentiment for procuring freedom for a selected group. ("Yes" to free the French for instance, but not to free the European Jews, or millions of burka clad women. "Yes" to free the Iraqis, but not to free the Nigerians.)

    I'd go on, and I have elsewhere, but it's not really germane to the thread topic.

    I use the term "War of Northern Aggression" as a personal protest against the fake history that victims of the public school system carry about in their heads. "War Between the States," might be correct, but it has less of an indictment about it. Besides, I don't expect to convince most people one way or another.
    Oh, yes, I totally agree with you on the historical details. The war was absolutely and entirely about Lincoln not wanting to lose half the country, so he started a war to re-conquer it.

    To my mind, any other interpretation makes no sense. Who would risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of their soldiers, ruin their economy, lose their standing on an international stage and risk invasion by foreign powers just for a social cause?

    The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more (and nothing less) than a brilliant political tactic to turn the war into a moral crusade against slavery, and by doing so, keep Britain and France out of the war, which Lincoln was freaking out about.

    Lincoln knew that if the Confederacy kept winning battles, Britain and France would step in to 'mediate' the conflict, and when Britain and France mediate conflicts, they don't play nice -- just look at Africa. So he waited for something that could plausibly be called a victory, Antietam, and then made this proclamation about the moral right of the North -- and in doing so, ensured that France and Britain, who were firmly anti-slavery, couldn't be seen to be supporting the slaveholding South.

    Clever.

  3. #83
    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
    . . .Who would risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of their soldiers, ruin their economy, lose their standing on an international stage and risk invasion by foreign powers just for a social cause?

    . . .
    Empowered Leftists the world over. After all, that's pretty much what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini did.
    Last edited by Oftencold; 12-11-13 at 12:11 PM.
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  4. #84
    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 Cephus View Post
    No it doesn't, someone can be culturally or ethnically Jewish and be an atheist at the same time. I'm sorry you don't comprehend the concepts involved.
    Their are people who practice Judaism but like with most other religions interpret it in different ways so the way some may interpret there religious heritage is and can be very different . Their is a difference in culture among those who practice Judaism for example orthodox compared to unorthodox practices . One cant be Jewish while being an atheist since it would be a contradiction for one to identify with a culture centered around a god for in which Atheist disclaim the existence of . Even though you did not bring up the origin section of my post which my original post was based off of but most do not post it to by accident or on purpose that being a Jewish American would not work since its a religious distinction it does not show where the person came from their heritage or country of origin . I know you did not say this but for those who have not bothered to read my first post I did not say it was not a ethnicity .
    Guinea pigs are amazing furry creatures !!

  5. #85
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Thats because I dont know you-but in itself that is an artifact of leftism-anyone who opposes tenets of the left (like identity politics) is considered a DEFAULT RACIST. Thats f'd up.
    And where the hell did I ever imply that, dude?

    Persecution complex, have we?

  6. #86
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,385

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    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.



    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.
    I don't diminish what a veteran has contributed, I just don't elevate the status to some level of superiority above any other citizen. In our country, even the President is called Mister. I do acknowledge that there is some level of hiring preference given to veterans and that some non-citizens who serve may have some additional status in gaining citizenship. I have no issues with that. If someone is injured in service, then their treatment should be covered.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Un biased View Post
    Their are people who practice Judaism but like with most other religions interpret it in different ways so the way some may interpret there religious heritage is and can be very different . Their is a difference in culture among those who practice Judaism for example orthodox compared to unorthodox practices . One cant be Jewish while being an atheist since it would be a contradiction for one to identify with a culture centered around a god for in which Atheist disclaim the existence of . Even though you did not bring up the origin section of my post which my original post was based off of but most do not post it to by accident or on purpose that being a Jewish American would not work since its a religious distinction it does not show where the person came from their heritage or country of origin . I know you did not say this but for those who have not bothered to read my first post I did not say it was not a ethnicity .
    In case you're not aware, Israel has a Law of Return which grants citizenship to people who are ETHNICALLY JEWISH! All you seem to be able to talk about is religion and you refuse to acknowledge that the word "Jewish" has other meanings that have nothing to do with religion.

    I'm done trying to explain it to you.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #88
    Advisor Amanda1858's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    592

    Re: Another question about race

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    We are a melting pot society, so it is perfectly appropriate for people to refer to their heritage since we benefit from the admixture the way we do.

    It only becomes divisive and unpatriotic when people adopt a multiculturalist attitude instead of melting pot where attitudes are in place that seek to preserve the distinct nature of the various sub cultures in such a way that each operates independently and different rules apply to different groups.

    All dogs are dogs, but some are beagles and some irish setters. Doesn't keep em from playing together at the dog park.
    Doesn't keep them from making puppies together either! (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice"---Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  9. #89
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: Another question about race


    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  10. #90
    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 diminish what a veteran has contributed, I just don't elevate the status to some level of superiority above any other citizen. In our country, even the President is called Mister. I do acknowledge that there is some level of hiring preference given to veterans and that some non-citizens who serve may have some additional status in gaining citizenship. I have no issues with that. If someone is injured in service, then their treatment should be covered.
    I think we're getting kinda far afield from what I was originally saying.

    I don't think Veterans are superior people nor do I suggest that they should be given rights or privileges that are not extended equally to every other American. I don't even think that non-veterans owe Veterans a debt of gratitude or respect, let alone deference or any kind of special perks or compensation.

    The point I was originally making is that for me, personally, the way I view things, is that I don't want to hear a bunch of non-veterans talking about how patriotic they are because it rings absolutely hollow - to my ears.

    I'm not saying that non-veterans who beat the patriotism drum aren't good people, I'm not even saying that they're unpatriotic.

    I'm just saying that when I hear them talking about how patriotic they are it sounds, to me, like the braying of a bunch of jackasses.

    That's my only point.

    Like it, don't like it. Agree with it, disagree with it.

    I don't much care.

    I was just adding my opinion to the discussion.
    “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.”

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •