• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another question about race

Is it wrong to refer to themselves as any of the following?

  • No, its fine to be refered to as listed

    Votes: 14 53.8%
  • Yes, its wrong to be refered to as listed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, I have neve expressed disapproval toward these designations

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Yes, I have expressed disapproval toward these designations

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • No, I'm fine "-American" in these cases

    Votes: 6 23.1%
  • Yes, its wrong to add "-American" in these cases

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • Total voters
    26
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/liesthegovernmenttoldyou.htm
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
. . .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:
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 .
 
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? :lol:

Persecution complex, have we?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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);)
 
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.
 
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.

I bet you love "Gone With the Wind" don't you?:lol:
 
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 ).

The politically correct hyphen-American move did start in the 1970's, I believe in 1976. President Carter jumped on the band wagon and told immigrants to hold on to their language, customs, culture and even not Americanizing their names.

It became the agenda of the "New Left" who had just gained control of the Democrat Party that immigrants shouldn't assimilate into the American society. Diversity became the new rule. Divide America. The melting pot is racist, from now on it will become a boiling pot to further a political agenda.
 
What's wrong with being an American? Is it so unsatisfactory that you must be a Taiwanese-Mongolese-Tibetan-Peruvian-Jupiterian-Kryptonian-American? What's up with that? so far as I'm concerned, if you were born and raised in America, you're an American, period. You're not part Irish or German or whatever the ****. These cultures and heritages are worlds apart. How special do you need to feel?
 
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.

In Israel. I'm not speaking about other countries since this thread is about America's use of Hyphenated word's of being a Blank American and that being of Jewish descent does not indicate ones heritage or culture since it is a religion that varies like all religions . I have said about 2 times already I never said Judaism or being Jewish is not a ethnicity . Jew - Jewish all come from Judaism which is a religion in no way have you used actual examples of the word without it being tied in with the religion in some way . You have explained nothing but gone around in circles citing things that have to do with nothing that I post . I have put more into my post but you don't even acknowledge at least I make a post to explain my view point while you do not .
 
The politically correct hyphen-American move did start in the 1970's, I believe in 1976. President Carter jumped on the band wagon and told immigrants to hold on to their language, customs, culture and even not Americanizing their names.

It became the agenda of the "New Left" who had just gained control of the Democrat Party that immigrants shouldn't assimilate into the American society. Diversity became the new rule. Divide America. The melting pot is racist, from now on it will become a boiling pot to further a political agenda.

I meant in the 1970 era ( sorry for the misunderstanding in my post)
 


Haha. Cute.

Curious: What specific instances do you think John Wayne was talking about when he said "a hyphen" has fanned the flames of hatred faster than a swastika?

Also what information is he basing his assertion than when people say "Irish-American" and what not, they're saying they are divided Americans?

Maybe I'm making too much of it. Poetic license. It does seem to be based solely on his on opinions and perceptions that have little to do with anything factual nor the motive of the people he made assertions about.
 
I meant in the 1970 era ( sorry for the misunderstanding in my post)

There was no misunderstanding, the 1970's covers 1976.

Actually the PC hyphenated-American agenda may have started a few years earlier but it was President Carter who jumped aboard with telling America that one no longer should assimilate into the American society.

In my life time I have watched some non black, white beard scratching liberal keep changing what black Americans should be referred to. It went from Negro, colored, black, Afro-American, African-American. Never just American. I finally said screw it, why can't the left make up their minds ? So today I use black American without the hyphen.

And I know more than a few black Americans who also came to the same conclusion.
 
Do you there anything unpatriotic, divisive or otherwise wrong for Americans to refer to themselves as any of the following with respect to ethic heritage?

- Italian
- Indian
- Chinese
- Irish
- Jewish
- German
- Arab

If you do consider it unpatriotic, divisive or otherwise wrong; have you ever in your life expressed disapproval of the specific references listed?

To clear up any confusion that ethnicity is being discussed and not nationality of which the person is a patriotic citizen of America; is it unpatriotic, divisive or otherwise wrong for Americans to add "-American" in that reference?


I see nothing wrong with it but I believe we all should be addressed as Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom