• 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!

Should we require all U.S citizens to spend two years overseas? [W:120]

Should all citizens be required to spend two years abroad?

  • Yes, it increases tolerance, improves our foreign relations, and opens minds

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • No, I don't think we should learn more about other cultures

    Votes: 9 60.0%

  • Maybe a different program, such as volunteering in underprivileged communities

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Total voters
    15
Kobie said:
And does that supposed racism prevent you from obtaining anything in society? No? THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Racism against white people very rarely makes that white person a "victim" of anything except the thoughts of the person being racist against them. Racism against minorities often prevents said minority from obtaining things like a job, or housing, or a host of other things. That is why white people, while perhaps objects of racism, are rarely "victims" of it. Only on the odd occasion where a white person is physically harmed due to "racism" do they ever actually lose anything.
Click to expand...

Never walked through a rough black area I see.... thought I was a dead white boy quite a few times.
 
Let's run with this concept. Americans should be required to spend two years in a foreign country. It would reduce ignorance, etc.

I don't disagree it would reduce ignorance. but...

...ignorance is a two-way street. I could only support it if the rest of the world was required to spend two years here. A one-for-one exchange program.

:popcorn2:
 
Ganapathy said:
The vast majority of our country's problems comes from our ignorance. Many young men and women in the "Bible Belt" have never been outside their home state before, let alone the country. They have never seen a world where police are unarmed and do not summarily execute people of color. They have never seen a world where private gun ownership is outlawed, and the public is safer because of it. They have never seen a world where the government pays for the healthcare bills of average citizens, and where the rich happily pay their fair share of taxes for the benefit of the public. They have never seen a world where Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Ho Chi Minh are not demonized by biased teachers and textbooks, but are treated and respected as the heroes they are.

I believe that all U.S citizens should be required to spend at least two years of their lives in a foreign country. This includes citizens from all over, regardless if they come for New York or Dallas, whether they are farmers or bankers. Special focus would be given on visiting countries that many citizens have been taught are their "enemies," and exploring the rich and profound culture and humanity of countries who are governed by revolutionaries, not reactionaries. China, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos, Bolivia, Iran, etc. Visiting other white dominated, capitalist countries such as Belgium or Canada or Israel would not fulfill this two year obligation.

If a citizen refuses to broaden his/her horizons and open their minds to other lifestyles around the world, they would be rightfully punished. Perhaps their right to vote could be suspended until this travel obligation is fulfilled, or maybe a prison term would also be a good punishment. While it seems harsh, these people have demonstrated their xenophobia and racism, and have shown that they will do nothing but hold progress back in this country.

The government would pay for all travel arrangements. We could afford this by cutting our military budget from 500 billion a year to 100 billion a year, in line with other countries our size such as India or China.

If this program were implemented, I believe that the citizens, voters, and leaders of the future would be far more open minded, well informed, and tolerant than citizens today currently are. We would have fewer unprovoked wars of aggression in other countries, both due to the increased tolerance and our decreased military budget. I truly believe that requiring all citizens to spend two years abroad would pay dividends for the future of the USA.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Be my guest.....if you survive the trip...you will kiss the ground here when you return. If you happen to move to countries such as El Salvador where gun ownership is fully illegal yet the violent gun related crime rate is one of the worst, you will realize your liberal professor is an idiot and will want out immediately in fear for your life..Classic liberal brainwashing to a naive young adult.....
 
Kobie said:
And does that supposed racism prevent you from obtaining anything in society? No? THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Racism against white people very rarely makes that white person a "victim" of anything except the thoughts of the person being racist against them. Racism against minorities often prevents said minority from obtaining things like a job, or housing, or a host of other things. That is why white people, while perhaps objects of racism, are rarely "victims" of it. Only on the odd occasion where a white person is physically harmed due to "racism" do they ever actually lose anything.
Click to expand...

The difference is white people are not oppressed as a group. A minority power cannot, logically, oppress the majority power as a group. It's being oppressed as a group that causes criminal elements of blacks to riot at perceived injustice, while criminal elements of whites do not riot at perceived injustice because... the instance of injustice does not threaten whites as a group.

Racism is a social construct and if one is not oppressed as a group, then one is the victim of racial bigotry not racism.


That's the difference.
 
ecofarm said:
The difference is white people are not oppressed as a group. A minority power cannot, logically, oppress the majority power as a group. It's being oppressed as a group that causes criminal elements of blacks to riot at perceived injustice, while criminal elements of whites do not riot at perceived injustice because... the instance of injustice does not threaten whites as a group.

Racism is a social construct and if one is not oppressed as a group, then one is the victim of racial bigotry not racism.


That's the difference.
Click to expand...

I think you're way too caught up in the semantics of the whole thing, but I understand (and agree with) the general sentiment.
 
Kobie said:
I think you're way too caught up in the semantics of the whole thing, but I understand (and agree with) the general sentiment.
Click to expand...

The semantics are important because when some scumbag racist tries to equate black guys looking at him meanly with racism we have a ****ing problem. Racism is a lot more than just racial bigotry and reducing a social construct to an individual act ignores the vast majority of what racism entails.

Claiming that racism is just racial bigotry ignores all of the social impacts of a social construct. Bigotry is an individual act, racism is not. Anyone can be a bigot. Only the majority power can make bigotry the oppression of a group.
 
Ganapathy said:
That's ok. You can just enjoy not being able to vote until you make that trip.
Click to expand...

Again with wanting to take the right to vote away from people who don't agree with you.
 
No it's much better to keep the American population at home and ignorant of what's going on in the wide world, as they may get ideas about spending their hard earned taxes on themselves, and not on their military which protects us freeloaders around the world who would rather spend our taxes on ourselves like cheap Medicare, and other luxuries of life which Americans cannot afford.
 
Right.

Everyone should spend at least 2 years in Mexico.

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom