Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, our identifying culture has been a melting of other cultures over the years into the basic ingredients. The basic ingredients still remain intact though. I don't know where you think you are going with this. With any dish if you put too much salt or pepper or any other ingredient into the pot it will change the flavor of it and not in a good way. That is what should be avoided so our identifying culture will retain it's natural and recognizable flavor. Overpowering it with too much other ingredients has the opposite effect.
I think, I'd hope, you know exactly where I'm going.
Culture changes over years. And it doesn't stop at the point that you just so happen to live in.
Maybe you're just the spice, and your stew needs some more meat. Good, juicy, dark meat
It's pretty arrogant to assume that the way you prefer stew is the best way for everyone.
Not sure what you are arguing because it was discussed that government intervention intentionally places poor minorities in areas that are too white.
I don't support government policies that force poor people into wealthy neighborhoods either. But we all know that is not what white nationalism is about.
The guy in the video clearly asserts that blacks have failed to assimilate in America in spite of living in this country for centuries. So, what he's essentially saying is that any person with darker skin pigmentation will never fit into America, no matter how rich or educated they are or how long their ancestors have lived in America. Therefore, whites need a separate space from nonwhites, and that is the ultimate aim of white nationalism.
I state the truth If it is offensive it is not I who makes it offensive, it is the belief system of an opposing view of the reader that makes it offensive. Those who agree it is not offensive
Nope, you demean. But whatever gets you through the night. And I'll just assume you've declined my challenge.
Re: bold: I'm gonna go out on a limb & make a bold assertion here; an "overhaul of the whole economic system" is less challenging than getting the ideologues to simply change their collective minds, even to simply think twice about ~ simply because their minds are 'set in stone'. Change will happen ~ it's the only constant ~ it's just a matter of time. After all, the rest of us don't have rocks in our heads.
The "City upon a Hill" is a phrase from the parable of Salt & Light in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:14, he tells his listeners, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden."
Oh then it's even better if it comes straight from the bible and American politicians have used this phrase. Because they were clearly wrong. The US is NOT that "City upon a Hill" - it's just a temporary place, a temporary arrangement where certain things need to be sorted out, before the "City upon the Hill" will come in place. There are two ideas, two beginnings in America that are not compatible with each other, and you are correct saying that it's more challenging to "change the collective minds" of certain part of White Americans on how things should be run and how they see it fit, than to "overhaul the whole economic system." In fact the economic system can be overhauled only on a basis of ideology ( or certain mores and beliefs,) - not the other way around. And certain part of White Americans firmly believe deep down inside that the way America has been built and prospered, was under the "White management" with people of color being in submission and playing the role of servants basically. Which is true, because this is the BASIS, the very foundation of American culture, where people of color are regarded as inferior, and today's "ghetto culture" serves as a proof of it.
Then, of course, there is a second idea ( that came later in time) that the "equality" is what will make America that "City upon a Hill," and that people really are not different in spite of their race; race is the "social construct" and this construct can be removed, given the "equal economic opportunities."
So there is part of Whites in America that believe in the initial idea and want no part of "multiculturalism" and people of color in their neighborhood, and then there are part of Whites in America that believe in harmony of coexistence with people of different backgrounds - sincerely so.
Then, of course, there are people of color who hate Whites (there was no "sudden revelation" to me when the scandal with Obama's pastor erupted,) and then there are those that preach "love and peace" no matter what.
So. There are controversies as you can see from both ends, and without resolution there can't be "City upon a Hill," when it comes to the US.
Quote:
American politicians have used the phrase, notably President Reagan. I don't think he really made clear how the folks on the top of the hill were to 'trickle down' to those who were not standing right next to them.
Look above - that's the explanation why he couldn't make it clear.
"Trickle down" economy works only in case of "closed borders," when the capital is not moved overseas, in order to conquer ( and thus to rule ) other places. So if the country ( or rather people in charge) are looking to expand their power elsewhere in the world instead of fixing the controversies in their own land, wait for trouble.
Oh then it's even better if it comes straight from the bible and American politicians have used this phrase. Because they were clearly wrong. The US is NOT that "City upon a Hill" - it's just a temporary place, a temporary arrangement where certain things need to be sorted out, before the "City upon the Hill" will come in place. There are two ideas, two beginnings in America that are not compatible with each other, and you are correct saying that it's more challenging to "change the collective minds" of certain part of White Americans on how things should be run and how they see it fit, than to "overhaul the whole economic system." In fact the economic system can be overhauled only on a basis of ideology ( or certain mores and beliefs,) - not the other way around. And certain part of White Americans firmly believe deep down inside that the way America has been built and prospered, was under the "White management" with people of color being in submission and playing the role of servants basically. Which is true, because this is the BASIS, the very foundation of American culture, where people of color are regarded as inferior, and today's "ghetto culture" serves as a proof of it.
Then, of course, there is a second idea ( that came later in time) that the "equality" is what will make America that "City upon a Hill," and that people really are not different in spite of their race; race is the "social construct" and this construct can be removed, given the "equal economic opportunities."
So there is part of Whites in America that believe in the initial idea and want no part of "multiculturalism" and people of color in their neighborhood, and then there are part of Whites in America that believe in harmony of coexistence with people of different backgrounds - sincerely so.
Then, of course, there are people of color who hate Whites (there was no "sudden revelation" to me when the scandal with Obama's pastor erupted,) and then there are those that preach "love and peace" no matter what.
So. There are controversies as you can see from both ends, and without resolution there can't be "City upon a Hill," when it comes to the US.
Look above - that's the explanation why he couldn't make it clear.
"Trickle down" economy works only in case of "closed borders," when the capital is not moved overseas, in order to conquer ( and thus to rule ) other places. So if the country ( or rather people in charge) are looking to expand their power elsewhere in the world instead of fixing the controversies in their own land, wait for trouble.
Agree with much or all here, thanks & respect for your thoughtful response, much appreciated.
Sometimes I wonder why Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes) is not mentioned more? There's an ebb & flow in the demands for the 10 Commandments to be posted on public buildings & in court rooms, etc., why not the same for the Beatitudes?
Fr'instance, in the Pentagon:
Quote:
"Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God."
In courtrooms:
Quote:
"Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy."
The Salt & Light parable follows the Beatitudes as part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:
Quote:
Salt and Light
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
"You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
The symbolism of the parable may have been (don't know this to be true) at least part of the reason for gifting the Statue of Liberty from the people of France to the American people. She's an awesome gift! She's beautiful & pragmatically serves variously as a 'lighthouse' or as a 'beacon' variously to warn or to guide.
Sorry for going off on the Statue of Liberty, quoting the Sermon on the Mount tangent, & for not directly replying to the very thoughtful response. At this point though, what more can I say?
On a more micro level, non-white ethnic and racial neighborhoods should always be protected from white people "gentrifying" and moving in, because it displaces the "original" inhabitants and upsets the ethnic and cultural makeup of a community. Non-white people should also be given "safe spaces" to be "unapologetically black" (or brown, or whatever), free from white people.
There isn't any place in America today where any person can be legally banned from entering solely because of their race or ethnicity. You can live wherever you want in America regardless of your skin pigmentation (and as long as you can afford it, of course). That includes whites living in mostly minority communities.
Certain individuals or groups might try to discriminate against others, but that is not legally protected. The only way you can separate out ethnicities in America is to go back to implementing 1950s-style segregation, South African apartheid or such.
I think, I'd hope, you know exactly where I'm going.
Culture changes over years. And it doesn't stop at the point that you just so happen to live in.
Maybe you're just the spice, and your stew needs some more meat. Good, juicy, dark meat
It's pretty arrogant to assume that the way you prefer stew is the best way for everyone.
Then it's not the original stew. Most of us like the original one and don't want it overpowered with too many different spices so that it becomes something else altogether that is totally unrecognizable. No culture should change so much that it is unrecognizable because that makes it extinct. Which is probably what you want.
Then it's not the original stew. Most of us like the original one and don't want it overpowered with too many different spices so that it becomes something else altogether that is totally unrecognizable. No culture should change so much that it is unrecognizable because that makes it extinct. Which is probably what you want.
The Concept of "white dominance" should be made "extinct", because the world is of many, and none is with any stamp that says they are better or above another. So the fiction created behind the delusions of white supremacy, should have been squashed centuries and decades ago.
It's enough to have a "majority of members in populations", but that is always only for a given time, and shall come to change, as with time and, as does time change all things. Majorities over time will not always be a majority, because the will, want, desires and aspiration of people change', and change it must because time changes all things.
Wanting the Past is a want that many has to cure himself of, for the future shall not forestall itself for any man.
Few people kept going out buying horse and buggy's once the car came into being, except those who found challenge to afford the car, and those who made choice not to have a car, as time moved on horse and buggy became fewer in numbers and select in their encampments who utilized them (i.e. Amish). As time came, the makers did not give their focus to mass producing them. Today, it is not likely that one would see a horse and buggy on any freeway, and not many major metro streets...
So... THINGS CHANGE.... We are not headed in any direction that indicates that the Horse and Buggy is coming back, instead we are not closer to driver-less vehicles, which some moved on from being steam driven long ago, to gasoline driven, and now some are becoming electric.... who knows what is to come next. but its highly unlikely that it will be the Horse and Buggy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they were clearly wrong. The US is NOT that "City upon a Hill" - it's just a temporary place, a temporary arrangement where certain things need to be sorted out, before the "City upon the Hill" will come in place. There are two ideas, two beginnings in America that are not compatible with each other, and you are correct saying that it's more challenging to "change the collective minds" of certain part of White Americans on how things should be run and how they see it fit, than to "overhaul the whole economic system." In fact the economic system can be overhauled only on a basis of ideology ( or certain mores and beliefs,) - not the other way around. And certain part of White Americans firmly believe deep down inside that the way America has been built and prospered, was under the "White management" with people of color being in submission and playing the role of servants basically. Which is true, because this is the BASIS, the very foundation of American culture, where people of color are regarded as inferior, and today's "ghetto culture" serves as a proof of it. 
