RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 2:52:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

In most countries of the world, you are simply born into a culture, that is also a nation-state, and is generally ethnically fairly homogenous.

I think one can make a very strong argument that being an "American" is more an act of free-will than in any other nation-state.  We have such a wide variety of ethnic groups, religions, cultures and other assorted mixes of humanity that being "American" is more an acceptance of general principles and beliefs.  It is more an act of will, than of birth.

Interesting concept it being an act of will. The pledge of allegiance at school may have a big impact here, I have been surpised at the peer pressure placed on non american children to conform with this, even if they are only in the country for a short period with no intention of becoming "americans". Perhaps this is the staring point for the Love it or Leave it stance that is sometimes displayed alongside US flags. Other countries have multi ethnic groups often from past defeated / absorbed communitites and whilst the requirement to be the same as the dominant nation drove certain policies in the past, in many "westernised countries" such pressures have now disapated. e.g. in the UK submerging cultures beneath a "British" nationality or the Basques in France / Spain, whilst in others they have not. If you compare with the American experience, the US also used enforced cultural change on Native Americans. 


Dtesmoac,

Native Americans ("Indians") are the only ethnic group that did not make a conscious decision to travel to "the New World" and leave behind their old culture and country during the historical formation of the US.

All other people knowingly departed from their home country and culture.  They "knocked the dust off of their feet", and sought better opportunity here.

There is a self-selection, then, to the type of personality that dominated the continental lands that became the US.  And, since everyone (with noted exception) were strangers to this land, and many intentionally wished to change the type of society that they lived in (in comparison to the one that they left), over time, what it was to be an "American" then became more of a choice to accept change, and accept that you had something in common with all the other immigrants.

And do not confuse "citizenship" with the American ideal of what an "American" is. For example, in France, even after decades of immigration of blacks and arabs, most of the recent troubles in France are due to the lack of integration of those populations into a common culture that is identifiable as "French".  In the US, while we have issues with race and culture, we would not find it particularly surprising when a black or arab becomes a political figure, or a wealthy entrepreneur.

We would expect them to be part of our schools, part of our political and economic life ... and for them to accept those philosophies and beliefs that would define them as "American".

Now, don't think that I've got some idealized version of all Americans, all the time being perfect and totally accepting of anyone "different".  Human nature is human nature.

But, probably more than any other nation in modern times, the level of integration of so many different combinations of race, ethnic types, cultures and peoples in peaceful pursuit of their own individual goals is unique.

You mention the "Pledge of Allegiance" and non-US citizen children in school, and this sounds like a personal experience you have had, perhaps with your own children.

Don't you find it amazing that others in the school simply assumed that the children would be "American"?  Even if they weren't native English speakers?  Even if they were in the school for only a short time?  Even they were of a different culture?

Perhaps you see it as being provincial, uneducated and ignorant of Americans.  I see it as a remarkable ability to take people as people first, a willingness to accept that "different" doesn't necessarily mean "not us".

This is just the opposite of the dehumanizing process often seen in other cultures where "different" means something "less than", where you can never become part of the dominant culture, even if your grandparents immigranted 100 years before.

Again, perfect?  No, Americans are human, and have all the foibles and prejudices that all humans have.  But I do think we have a systemic societal ability to be more accepting than just about any other nation. 

This tends to make us less accepting of certain philosophical ideas, and tends to make certain ideas and beliefs more important to us than to many other nations and cultures.  ("Patriotism" is a good example).

I'm not saying that a particular culture or ethnic group or groups haven't had a profound effect on what "America" is.  I think the English, and in particular the Scots-Irish have had a major impact in shaping the culture of the US (more on this later).  But, I think that the resulting culture is able to define itself as accepting members who aren't white-anglo-saxon-christian as part of the core group, based on their philosophical acceptance of certain key beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

What would you consider as these core principles and cultures?


No two people will give you the same answer, I'm afraid.  I'd invite you to google "core American values", but I do have my opinions.

First, just as a general overview, here are some that I found (on a "liberal" site, by a "progessive" political thinker:
Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality

Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country

Personally, off the top of my head, I see key ones as:

Individuality
Personal responsibility
Competitivness and Determination
Democratic processes
Non-intrusive government
Loyalty and Honor
Populism (Rooting for the Underdog/distaste of elites)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

2.  Some native born citizens reject those "general principles and beliefs" and are therefore labeled "Anti-American".

I hear the term Libertarian and Liberal used quite derogatively on channels such as Fox, and therefore possibly also implied as being Anti-American.


I'm not sure that many libertarians are labelled as "anti-American".  Libertariansim is a very "American" belief system, focusing on individuality, personal responsibility, non-intrusive government and populism extensively.

American "liberalism" today seems to focus on responsibility to help others and compassion, and populism but is at odds with other core values such as a non-intrusive government and personal responsibility.

In effect, there is a debate and fight going on in the US culture over the relative importance of each of these core values.  You'll often hear of the "culture war", and to me, this is the essence of what that means:  two different "sides", both fighting for their own definition of what "American" means.  Mud gets slung on both sides.

Fox News is generally in-line with the full historical definition (or at least the Jacksonian definition of that) of what constitutes an "American" and is one of the few major media outlets that operates on those assumptions. 

I'd suspect if your values tended to mirror those historical values, watching many of the other news media would leave you shaking your head over how derogatively those values are treated by NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

Generally, European thought is more in-line with the new, emerging "liberal" definition of "American", so they tend to sympathize with that (liberal) point of view, and castigate the historical beliefs of American identity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

It's a cultural oddity, that many citizens from other countries have difficulty in understanding, and (I'm sure) that some Americans will themselves deny, but it's a fairly well-recognized difference between America, and most other nations in the world.

I have formed a view of what I consider to be cultural traits of americans but there are substantial regional differences. I see far bigger differences between other nations than for example between the US and many European nations.


I'll address this later.  My post is already waaay too long.

FirmKY



FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 3:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

It's a cultural oddity, that many citizens from other countries have difficulty in understanding, and (I'm sure) that some Americans will themselves deny, but it's a fairly well-recognized difference between America, and most other nations in the world.

I have formed a view of what I consider to be cultural traits of americans but there are substantial regional differences. I see far bigger differences between other nations than for example between the US and many European nations.


Good point.

However, I'd like to suggest that you be extremely careful in forming conclusions quickly, or easily.

There is a mental trap that many non-Americans fall into.  While I'm not saying you do fall into this trap, I've seen enough non-Americans (primarily Europeans) who do so, that a word of warning and advice is warranted.

I've lived and traveled "overseas" and within the US extensively in my years.  At one time, I was tested and ranked as "fluent" (oral and written) in a major European language, and I've had years of training in a second European language, and some experience with at least a third.

One of the things you are taught to watch out for when you learn to speak another language is something called "false cognitives".   False cognitives are words and phrases that are very similar to your native language's words and phrases, but mean something else entirely.

I think that this is the trap that many Europeans fall into when trying to understand the US.  They understand that the majority of the culture grew out of the cultures and ideas from Europe.  The English language is European in it's root.  There is a common history of Christianity, philosophy, science and capitalism.

Thinking, therefore, that America is just like any other European country is misleading and dangerous (and not to the US, either).

Just as many Americans are accused by Europeans of being provincial, uncultured and crude, many Europeans do not realize that they have their own provincial out-look, their own uncultured side, and their own crude assumption of superiority.

The problem is that while Americans have been told that we are "a poor reflection of European culture and thought" for centuries, and had to come to terms with what that meant, many Europeans - until recently - haven't had the drive or the impetus to do the same soul-searching.

It tends to make them come across to Americans as smug and self-righteous, lecturing us as "our betters".  I submit that it would pay Europeans dividends to assume that everything they think they know about America is wrong, and start their search for understanding from scratch.

And here is a good starting point:

A few years ago, a social scientist by the name of Walter Russell Mead wrote an article titled "The Jacksonian Tradition".  The link takes you to the article, and while long, I think you'll find it relatively easy to read, and believe it will give you a different outlook on a lot of your beliefs about Americans.

It ain't all pretty, I'll admit, but it strikes to the core of my own personal observations and thoughts over my lifetime about "what America is all about".

Some extracts (and believe me, these are only a small part of the article):

For foreigners and for some Americans, the Jacksonian tradition is the least impressive in American politics. It is the most deplored abroad, the most denounced at home. Jacksonian chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are the despair of high-minded people everywhere, as they hold up adhesion to the Kyoto Protocol, starve the UN and the IMF, cut foreign aid, and ban the use of U.S. funds for population control programs abroad. When spokesmen for other schools of thought speak about the "problems" of American foreign policy, the persistence and power of the Jacksonian school are high on their list. While some of this fashionable despair may be overdone, and is perhaps a reflection of different class interests and values, it is true that Jacksonians often figure as the most obstructionist of the schools, as the least likely to support Wilsonian initiatives for a better world, to understand Jeffersonian calls for patient diplomacy in difficult situations, or to accept Hamiltonian trade strategies. Ye t without Jacksonians, the United States would be a much weaker power.

...

The Jacksonian Code

To understand how Crabgrass Jacksonianism [shapes] America ... we must begin with ... an unfashionable concept: Honor. ...

The first principle of this code is self-reliance. ...

...

One is entitled to, and demands, the appropriate respect: recognition of rights and just claims, acknowledgment of one’s personal dignity. Many Americans will still fight, sometimes with weapons, when they feel they have not been treated with the proper respect. But even among the less violent, Americans stand on their dignity and rights.

...

The second principle of the code is equality. Among those members of the folk community who do pull their weight, there is an absolute equality of dignity and right. No one has a right to tell the self-reliant Jacksonian what to say, do or think. Any infringement on equality will be met with defiance and resistance.

...

The third principle is individualism. The Jacksonian does not just have the right to self-fulfillment—he or she has a duty to seek it.

...

Despite this individualism, the Jacksonian code also mandates acceptance of certain social mores and principles. Loyalty to family, raising children "right", sexual decency (heterosexual monogamy—which can be serial) and honesty within the community are virtues that commend themselves to the Jacksonian spirit. Children of both sexes can be wild, but both women and men must be strong.

...

The fourth pillar in the Jacksonian honor code ... Let us call it financial esprit. While the Jacksonian believes in hard work, he or she also believes that credit is a right and that money, especially borrowed money, is less a sacred trust than a means for self-discovery and expression. ... The strict Jacksonian code of honor does not enjoin what others see as financial probity. What it demands, rather, is a daring and entrepreneurial spirit.

...

Finally, courage is the crowning and indispensable part of the code. Jacksonians must be ready to defend their honor in great things and small. Americans ought to stick up for what they believe. In the nineteenth century, Jacksonian Americans fought duels long after aristocrats in Europe had given them up, and Americans today remain far more likely than Europeans to settle personal quarrels with extreme and even deadly violence.

...

In one war after another, Jacksonians have flocked to the colors. Independent and difficult to discipline, they have nevertheless demonstrated magnificent fighting qualities in every corner of the world. Jacksonian America views military service as a sacred duty. When Hamiltonians, Wilsonians and Jeffersonians dodged the draft in Vietnam or purchased exemptions and substitutes in earlier wars, Jacksonians soldiered on, if sometimes bitterly and resentfully. An honorable person is ready to kill or to die for family and flag.

...

Jacksonian society draws an important distinction between those who belong to the folk community and those who do not. Within that community, among those bound by the code and capable of discharging their responsibilities under it, Jacksonians are united in a social compact. Outside that compact is chaos and darkness.

...

The absolute and even brutal distinction drawn between the members of the community and outsiders has had massive implications in American life. Throughout most of American history the Jacksonian community was one from which many Americans were automatically and absolutely excluded: Indians, Mexicans, Asians, African Americans, obvious sexual deviants and recent immigrants of non-Protestant heritage have all felt the sting.

...

The degree to which African-American society resembles Jacksonian culture remains one of the crucial and largely overlooked elements in American life.

...

The underlying cultural unity between African Americans and Anglo-Jacksonian America shaped the course and ensured the success of the modern civil rights movement. Martin Luther King and his followers exhibited exemplary personal courage, their rhetoric was deeply rooted in Protestant Christianity, and the rights they asked for were precisely those that Jacksonian America values most for itself. Further, they scrupulously avoided the violent tactics that would have triggered an unstoppable Jacksonian response.
This is just a small part of a very observant look at America from the inside.  I highly recommend you spend some time with it.

FirmKY

Note to Mods:  The original article is quite lengthy (26 webpages), and I believe that the short extracts above qualify as "fair use" as defined by US copyright law under the four-point balancing test.



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 4:26:19 PM)

Have you ever been to Britain, France or Holland or any of the old imperial powers? If you had, you would have noticed that the races mix far more than they do in the States. Some 20% of British children born in the last twenty-five years are of mixed race, Holland is higher and while I can't find figures for France, having lived there, it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were similar to Britain. You mention the troubles in France as though these were major problems and that is not surprising the way the media reported them but they were problems confined to very small areas and not to ethnic or religious groups. The media forgot to report that many of the rioters in the suburbs of France were white French.

But from my experience, Europeans and Americans are different, far more different than any surface observation leads one to believe. This is why I think politicians like Blair make an enormous mistake in believing Britain has more in common with the US than continental Europe. My guess is that Dtesmoac has realised that on his stay in America, which is where I was staying when I realised that Britain had nothing in common with the US other than language and even that hid many differences.

Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality
 
Freedom and spirituality are so ethereal as to have no meaning, they are what you want them to be, they exist in an individual's imagination. Individual responsibility is usually something someone dumps on people. It is YOUR fault for being poor! The individual can only be responsible in a responsible collective, other wise there is no real context to measure individual responsibility, you are just looking after number one.

Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country

I did notice in my stay in America, Americans have far more respect and are far more defferential to authority than Europeans which at first was a surprise but on reflection it wasn't. Europeans have been led into horrenduous and disastrous wars caused by the same patriotism that is alive and well in the US today. America is the most patriotic nation I have ever experienced and the American flag is everywhere. One can't forget where one is. But I don't think they love their country anymore than anyone else, they just wear it on their sleeve like a badge of honour. It appears to me to be the same sort of nonsense that had Europeans cheering and shouting about going to war in 1914. Britain was the richest and most powerful country in the world then so there is food for thought for blind patriotism.

Personal fullfillment always seemed a strange one for me because how can one legislate for such a thing, as with happiness. They are meaningless values.



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 4:48:47 PM)

Im afraid I have to disagree with meatcleaver that racial integration has happened more here in Europe.

Yes a high number of citizens here in the UK have been born here and are of different ethnic extraction. But....... they still speak their own language, live in their own parts of town, even to an extent drive their own make and model of car. I would argue that in many cases (there are some places where whites are fast becoming the minority) just the sheer number of different skins and faces walking the streets make the places look more integrated. There is also the issue of density to consider, Towns and cities here tend to be much tighter packed, smaller narrower streets, smaller houses that people appear closer than in many other parts of the world.

As for deference to authority, that has nothing to do with previous wars (most euro states were dragged into these wars as a matter of self defence, some of the others were fought by americans too - take Vietnam as an example), but a general change in culture over the last 50 years. Why should a teenage thug show any respect to an authority figure when that figure has absolutely no power over the thug. The welfare state has resulted in a "screw you, something for nothing" mindset that leaves no respect for authourity, people or property, and I include self-respect in that too.

Here now in england there is being a bit of a pro-patriotism backlash, but to admit to being a patriot is a baaaad thing, being a patriot automatically makes you a thug, a racist, intolerant, soccer fan in many eyes. It is better socially and professionally to admit to being a homosexual than to admit to being a patriot with a respect for yourself, others and authourity.

We may be integrated further up the social scale, but at the bottom it more a case of being forced together and having no choice but to interact.




meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 4:55:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Im afraid I have to disagree with meatcleaver that racial integration has happened more here in Europe.

Yes a high number of citizens here in the UK have been born here and are of different ethnic extraction. But....... they still speak their own language, live in their own parts of town, even to an extent drive their own make and model of car. I would argue that in many cases (there are some places where whites are fast becoming the minority) just the sheer number of different skins and faces walking the streets make the places look more integrated. There is also the issue of density to consider, Towns and cities here tend to be much tighter packed, smaller narrower streets, smaller houses that people appear closer than in many other parts of the world.


The census figures put mixed race births at 20% of all births over the last quarter of a century, the vast majority of those having a one white parent. However you look at it and whatever the newspapers would have you believe, you can't make that sort of integration disappear as it is evidence in flesh and blood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
As for deference to authority, that has nothing to do with previous wars (most euro states were dragged into these wars as a matter of self defence, some of the others were fought by americans too - take Vietnam as an example), but a general change in culture over the last 50 years. Why should a teenage thug show any respect to an authority figure when that figure has absolutely no power over the thug. The welfare state has resulted in a "screw you, something for nothing" mindset that leaves no respect for authourity, people or property, and I include self-respect in that too.


Tell me one country that was dragged into WWI as a matter of self defence?

It seems to me you have been reading too many tabloid newspapers.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/26/2006 5:21:58 PM)

meat

Out of curiosity, what nation do you claim citizenship to?  And in which nation were you born?

Also, if you really want some "meat" to whale on me, then read "The Jacksonian Tradition" I linked in the second post above.  I'd bet you'll find plenty of stuff you can throw around that'll justify your anti-American ([:D]) streak.

Now, specific responses:

Have you ever been to Britain, France or Holland or any of the old imperial powers?
Yes.



If you had, you would have noticed that the races mix far more than they do in the States. Some 20% of British children born in the last twenty-five years are of mixed race, Holland is higher and while I can't find figures for France, having lived there, it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were similar to Britain.
I wish you would provide links when you claim percentages and stuff, but, even accepting your figures, I guess my question is ... how does that relate to any of my points?



 You mention the troubles in France as though these were major problems and that is not surprising the way the media reported them but they were problems confined to very small areas and not to ethnic or religious groups. The media forgot to report that many of the rioters in the suburbs of France were white French.
Please define "many".

I think that mostly, the media forgot to report that most of the rioters were muslims and lived in ghettos.



But from my experience, Europeans and Americans are different, far more different than any surface observation leads one to believe.
Which was my point, I think.  (Looks around).  Yes, that was my point.



This is why I think politicians like Blair make an enormous mistake in believing Britain has more in common with the US than continental Europe. My guess is that Dtesmoac has realised that on his stay in America, which is where I was staying when I realised that Britain had nothing in common with the US other than language and even that hid many differences.
I think "nothing in common" is stretching it a bit, however.



Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality
 
Freedom and spirituality are so ethereal as to have no meaning, they are what you want them to be, they exist in an individual's imagination.
"Freedom" and "spirituality" as beliefs are two of the most powerful concepts in human thought.



Individual responsibility is usually something someone dumps on people. It is YOUR fault for being poor!

No, individual responsibility is when a person accepts that there are many things in their lives that they are responsible for, and then proceeds to take control of their life, whatever the cost.  It means understanding that waiting for someone else to "do" for you may mean that you die of old age before it "gets done", or that you live a life of aggravation, envy and a sense of powerlessness if you don't accept responsibility in your life.



The individual can only be responsible in a responsible collective, other wise there is no real context to measure individual responsibility, you are just looking afternumber one.
Hmmm ... I disagree totally with your "collective" belief.  As I have said, this is one of the (if not the most) important defining differences between Americans and everyone else.  Generally "collective responsibility" means no one is responsible.  I don't believe in "collective responsibility" in any shape, form or fashion, and think it often leads to the most horrendous evils in the world.  And just bad government all the time.



Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country
I did notice in my stay in America, Americans have far more respect and are far more defferential to authority than Europeans which at first was a surprise but on reflection it wasn't. Europeans have been led into horrenduous and disastrous wars caused by the same patriotism that is alive and well in the US today.

An example of your very basic failure to understand Americans is well displayed here, meat.

I specifically mentioned "patriotism" as one of those things that are somewhat different in an American than in a European, but I don't believe it is due to the "horrenduous and disasterous wars caused by the same patriotism" that you think you see in the US.  It's a false cognitive.



America is the most patriotic nation I have ever experienced and the American flag is everywhere. One can't forget where one is. But I don't think they love their country anymore than anyone else, they just wear it on their sleeve like a badge of honour. It appears to me to be the same sort of nonsense that had Europeans cheering and shouting about going to war in 1914. Britain was the richest and most powerful country in the world then so there is food for thought for blind patriotism.
meat, American patriotism is much more of a religious and spiritual thing in the US than it ever was in Europe.  It's roots are very different, even if the expression is similiar to what occured in European history.  Just as an example, was it ever considered "patriotic" in any European country to consider or act in open rebellion to the "legitimate" government of a nation?

I submit, that in the US, there are situations and times that we would consider it the highest level of patriotism to revolt againts the national government.



Personal fullfillment always seemed a strange one for me because how can one legislate for such a thing, as with happiness. They are meaningless values.
Happiness is meaningless?

Boy, we really do have a cultural problem in communications here.  Or is it just personal?

FirmKY



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/27/2006 12:58:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

meat

Out of curiosity, what nation do you claim citizenship to?  And in which nation were you born?


British. I have a Dutch daughter who has a significant amount of French blood in her and a Japanese daughter and I consider European as an important part of my identity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Also, if you really want some "meat" to whale on me, then read "The Jacksonian Tradition" I linked in the second post above.  I'd bet you'll find plenty of stuff you can throw around that'll justify your anti-American ([:D]) streak.

Now, specific responses:





Have you ever been to Britain, France or Holland or any of the old imperial powers?
Yes.







If you had, you would have noticed that the races mix far more than they do in the States. Some 20% of British children born in the last twenty-five years are of mixed race, Holland is higher and while I can't find figures for France, having lived there, it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were similar to Britain.

I wish you would provide links when you claim percentages and stuff, but, even accepting your figures, I guess my question is ... how does that relate to any of my points?



I'll try and look them up throughout the day

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



 You mention the troubles in France as though these were major problems and that is not surprising the way the media reported them but they were problems confined to very small areas and not to ethnic or religious groups. The media forgot to report that many of the rioters in the suburbs of France were white French.

Please define "many".

I think that mostly, the media forgot to report that most of the rioters were muslims and lived in ghettos.



My ex wife's cousin who I am on very good terms with and visit when I go to Paris lives in Saint Denis and is married to an Algerian muslim. They both say, as do many of their friends, that the riots were site specific and are not a symptom of a wider racial problem and that the stressing of muslims in news reports was more to do with the current hysteria about Islam as there were many Christians involved. Theyn say there is about 20-30% whites in suburbs (I live in an area with only 10% pure white and I wouldn't call it a ghetto) and many of the rioters did prove to be illegal which in France, without a social security card, means you are totally outside the system, unable to claim medical care or any state aid and effectively abandoned. If that is the case, the rioters have nothing to lose and having watched several documentaries on Dutch and German TV since, the locals are pretty vocal anti the rioters who many claim are interlopers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY




This is why I think politicians like Blair make an enormous mistake in believing Britain has more in common with the US than continental Europe. My guess is that Dtesmoac has realised that on his stay in America, which is where I was staying when I realised that Britain had nothing in common with the US other than language and even that hid many differences.

I think "nothing in common" is stretching it a bit, however.



Blair made the mistake in thinking Britain's interests are the same as US interests, they are anything but. It is not in our interests to be meddling militarily in the middle east (not that we haven't done our fair share of meddling in the past) which is Europe's backyard. It's not in Britain's interest to sacrifice political capital in Europe and support unpopular military adventurism with the US.

Soon as the US has no use for Britain it will be dropped which is why Blair is such an asshole. He has already more or less admitted that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that he had no influence over the US administration. It seems he's having this  urge to come clean before he leaves power.

This is a lesson to the next Atlanticist prime minister Britain has which looks like being the next one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality

Freedom and spirituality are so ethereal as to have no meaning, they are what you want them to be, they exist in an individual's imagination.

"Freedom" and "spirituality" as beliefs are two of the most powerful concepts in human thought.



Freedom, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've said it before. Western 'freedom' is not freedom but an accommodation between different interests in society. The powerful giving the weak enough to keep them satisfied, the weak being in a position where they think their best interests are served by being acquiescent.

'Spirituality' what is that? It is such a woolly term and again something that exists in an individual's imagination and not out there in the objective world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Individual responsibility is usually something someone dumps on people. It is YOUR fault for being poor!


No, individual responsibility is when a person accepts that there are many things in their lives that they are responsible for, and then proceeds to take control of their life, whatever the cost.  It means understanding that waiting for someone else to "do" for you may mean that you die of old age before it "gets done", or that you live a life of aggravation, envy and a sense of powerlessness if you don't accept responsibility in your life.




The individual can only be responsible in a responsible collective, other wise there is no real context to measure individual responsibility, you are just looking afternumber one.


Hmmm ... I disagree totally with your "collective" belief.  As I have said, this is one of the (if not the most) important defining differences between Americans and everyone else.  Generally "collective responsibility" means no one is responsible.  I don't believe in "collective responsibility" in any shape, form or fashion, and think it often leads to the most horrendous evils in the world.  And just bad government all the time.


I accept that if you wait for someone else to do something for you, hell will freeze over first. However, looking after my own selfish interests I would define as that, looking after my own interests. Individual responsibilty goes hand in hand with collective responsibility as in being able to be responsible for ones neighbour, one has to be responsible to ones self first. My self interests could mean me undermining my neighbour and therefore, probably not socially responsible.

I would selfish interest leads to horrendous evils in the world and this is an important reason my attitude changed in the US. How can the richest country in the world allow such poverty in its midst?

How can we (the western world) as a culture, exploit, subjugate and leave in poverty so much of the world? We strip other people's wealth and assets so we can live in relative luxury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country




I did notice in my stay in America, Americans have far more respect and are far more defferential to authority than Europeans which at first was a surprise but on reflection it wasn't. Europeans have been led into horrenduous and disastrous wars caused by the same patriotism that is alive and well in the US today.

An example of your very basic failure to understand Americans is well displayed here, meat.

I specifically mentioned "patriotism" as one of those things that are somewhat different in an American than in a European, but I don't believe it is due to the "horrenduous and disasterous wars caused by the same patriotism" that you think you see in the US.  It's a false cognitive.




America is the most patriotic nation I have ever experienced and the American flag is everywhere. One can't forget where one is. But I don't think they love their country anymore than anyone else, they just wear it on their sleeve like a badge of honour. It appears to me to be the same sort of nonsense that had Europeans cheering and shouting about going to war in 1914. Britain was the richest and most powerful country in the world then so there is food for thought for blind patriotism.

meat, American patriotism is much more of a religious and spiritual thing in the US than it ever was in Europe.  It's roots are very different, even if the expression is similiar to what occured in European history.  Just as an example, was it ever considered "patriotic" in any European country to consider or act in open rebellion to the "legitimate" government of a nation?

I submit, that in the US, there are situations and times that we would consider it the highest level of patriotism to revolt againts the national government.


The French have a tradition of riot and protest against their government which is why I think the riots in France were largely misintpreted outside France.

Patriotism in Britain bearly exists, certainly I don't feel patriotic, the government can disappear up its own arse for me. That does not say I don't feel an afinity for my homeland but my homeland is not the British state. I get the same feeling here in Holland, the state is different from the homeland, it is the homeland that is far more important than the state.

In the empire patriotism was the glue that held Britain together because Britain was a young country (it only unified at the beginning of the 18th century). It seems to me that this is how American patriotism functions, the glue that holds disperate peoples together.



quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Personal fullfillment always seemed a strange one for me because how can one legislate for such a thing, as with happiness. They are meaningless values.

Happiness is meaningless?

Boy, we really do have a cultural problem in communications here.  Or is it just personal?



What is happiness? Define it. How do you legislate for it? It can be anything. Again something that only exists in an individual's imagination. Maybe its this need for happiness that appears to create so much dissatisfaction in America, this apparent need to always be searching for something else. If you view happiness as some state of being then the chances are you will never possess it because there will always be a more happy state to be in.



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/27/2006 3:13:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The census figures put mixed race births at 20% of all births over the last quarter of a century, the vast majority of those having a one white parent. However you look at it and whatever the newspapers would have you believe, you can't make that sort of integration disappear as it is evidence in flesh and blood.


Tell me one country that was dragged into WWI as a matter of self defence?

It seems to me you have been reading too many tabloid newspapers.


Point 1, by those figures, as I live in a poorer area of a major city, commute thru one of its richest, its retail centre and its business centres, 1 in 5 of the people I share mass transit with should be of mixed ethnicity. I think that a rush hour on mass transit is a fair statistical universe. I cannot honestly remember the last time I noticed somebody of mixed parentage, however it could be that I am just so used to seeing it that I dont notice it. (I doubt that but in fairness during my commute tomorrow I shall make a point of noticing)

I discount WWI, it is so far in the past as to have minimal impact on the national pysche. As for tabloids, yes I read them, and the broadsheets, have 4 international news TV channels on monitors at work, and ticker feed from the two major agencies (before being re-written to suit the editor of whichever publisher later puts their own spin on any particular story)



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/28/2006 5:20:10 PM)

FirmHand

First of thnaks for the long reply - it has provided good food for thought. In fact it is the first time I have had to print off a reply to read through......!!  A few response probably taken completely out of con text...



Native Americans ("Indians") are the only ethnic group that did not make a conscious decision to travel to "the New World" and leave behind their old culture and country during the historical formation of the US. And the african americans and inital convicts .....? (I accept that is a cheap shot opener)

All other people knowingly departed from their home country and culture.  They "knocked the dust off of their feet", and sought better opportunity here.

There is a self-selection, then, to the type of personality that dominated the continental lands that became the US.  And, since everyone (with noted exception) were strangers to this land, and many intentionally wished to change the type of society that they lived in (in comparison to the one that they left), over time, what it was to be an "American" then became more of a choice to accept change, and accept that you had something in common with all the other immigrants.
Leaping to the conclusion that you are implying a type of natural selection to this comment, could it not alternatively be stated that "real fighters" stayed and through inovation and strength of spirit brought about significant change within their home countries rather than running away to a place over seas painted as the promised land where you would be given land or gold for free? I think most immigrants woke up to reality upon arival in the US rather than before departing there. 

many intentionally wished to change the type of society that they lived in (in comparison to the one that they left), over time, what it was to be an "American" then became more of a choice to accept change, and accept that you had something in common with all the other immigrants.
A commonly held view point and possibly correct, but apart from Utah and the Mormons not one that is clearly evident, the loss of individual national identities appears to occur only as you travel west across the US, e.g. look at English & French influence on the east, Scandanavian in Minnesotta, etc. The differences seem more to be prgmatic solutions to an initally large country with low density of population, weak central governance, and a requirement to conform to local requirements or move or be moved on.

In the US, while we have issues with race and culture, we would not find it particularly surprising when a black or arab becomes a political figure, or a wealthy entrepreneur.
I would agree that culturally the Caucasian French appear to be able to blame the Arabs / Algerians for all crime in a more open manner than in the US but I have found the open rascist manner used on TV and Radio stations in the US suprising. Also in the middle classes there is in the US as in other Western Countries a degree of true mutliculturalism but lower down the "social order" the xenophobia in the US appears to match that of other cultures. From experience, in all white environments of managers and business owners and shop floor workers in the US racist attitudes are just as prevelant as in European countries. The first Muslim elected to the Congress has been globally news worthy - reported in France, UK, Australia, not because it is a milestone but because in these countries equivalent milestones were reached years ago.

We would expect them to be part of our schools, part of our political and economic life ... and for them to accept those philosophies and beliefs that would define them as "American". In the american viewpoint this may be inviting them to the US view, but is it by persuasion or coercian?

But, probably more than any other nation in modern times, the level of integration of so many different combinations of race, ethnic types, cultures and peoples in peaceful pursuit of their own individual goals is unique.

You mention the "Pledge of Allegiance" and non-US citizen children in school, and this sounds like a personal experience you have had, perhaps with your own children.

Don't you find it amazing that others in the school simply assumed that the children would be "American"?  Even if they weren't native English speakers?  To explain the situation, it was clearly known that they were not American and also it is clearly known that others within the class are also not US citizens, as there are some significant multinational corporations in the area and so the school has a high catchement of children from educated and professional classes of various non American nations. For me of greater interest was that some foreign children in order to be accepted fulfilled the pledge, and that some of the school children and even their parents found it suprising that there was no equivalent for this in the UK. At school you say your times tables by rotation to ingraine the knowledge, within a school setting an outsiders perspective is that the pledge ingrains a single viewpoint of America at a very earlt age. Of even greater interest was when a friends daughter aged 3 started reciting the pledge....which they don't do at the nursery apparently.!!! To give one non american viewpoint, this seems to be a brain washing exercise........with of course the opt out, provided you are willing to not be one of the crowd!  

Perhaps you see it as being provincial, uneducated and ignorant of Americans.  I see it as a remarkable ability to take people as people first, a willingness to accept that "different" doesn't necessarily mean "not us". I can not sum up 300 million people in a book let alone 3 words. But as meatcleaver has observed, during my time in the US by views have perhaps been altered.

This is just the opposite of the dehumanizing process often seen in other cultures where "different" means something "less than", where you can never become part of the dominant culture, even if your grandparents immigranted 100 years before. Please refer to the way illegals are discussed in many parts of the US. How when a worker was killed in Minnesotta most of the news coverage concerned his illegal status and the $15000 for the return of the body to mexico, rather than the inadequate provisions of OSHA requirements. The US is different and equal to but no better at acceptance and integration of cultures than most democratic, 1st world nations. It does have a tendancy to "Disney atise " other cultures though.

Again, perfect?  No, Americans are human, and have all the foibles and prejudices that all humans have.  But I do think we have a systemic societal ability to be more accepting than just about any other nation. In some places yes in others no........just as is the case in Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, Spain, Denmark........etc.  No greater no lesser.  

But, I think that the resulting culture is able to define itself as accepting members who aren't white-anglo-saxon-christian as part of the core group, based on their philosophical acceptance of certain key beliefs.
Again I can understand why many americans would believe this, but I do not / have not seen this to be uniformaly a true statement. Particularly the unbalanced media system is a case in point.

 
I will continue with response to other points later as you provided much food for thought and I will try to be "fair and balanced...!" and provide justifications.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/28/2006 5:40:38 PM)


No two people will give you the same answer, I'm afraid.  I'd invite you to google "core American values", but I do have my opinions. - Will do when I get a chance

First, just as a general overview, here are some that I found (on a "liberal" site, by a "progessive" political thinker:

Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality

Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country

Personally, off the top of my head, I see key ones as:

Individuality - yes I agee but perhaps my observations would include that at the expence of others is also acceptable to a high degree
Personal responsibility - yes
Competitivness and Determination - yes - does this include the will to win......or the will to win by any means
Democratic processes - interesting one and clearly a core Western Value and differential from other global movements.
Non-intrusive government - yes, this one is to an outsider facinating and clearly a significant one.
Loyalty and Honor - I am pondering this one in light of your comments later.
Populism (Rooting for the Underdog/distaste of elites) - this one needs clarrification, the fraternity system, the protected / gated housing systems, private medicine provision, affordability of education, ......... this one I am not convinced of but accept that to many americans it is a truism......


In effect, there is a debate and fight going on in the US culture over the relative importance of each of these core values.  You'll often hear of the "culture war", and to me, this is the essence of what that means:  two different "sides", both fighting for their own definition of what "American" means.  Mud gets slung on both sides.

Fox News is generally in-line with the full historical definition (or at least the Jacksonian definition of that) of what constitutes an "American" and is one of the few major media outlets that operates on those assumptions.  I find the whole fair and balanced angle of Fox news highly entertaining. I would perhaps put it down as one of the demonstrations of American Elitism and cultural isolationism. If you turn the volume off and watch interviews the facial expression of the interviewer will immediately inform you whether the interviewee is a crack pot or an authoritative expert, turn the volume up and you will find in each case that the crack pot does not comply with the fox perspective. Liekwise the tome of voice will indicate whether the interviewee should be believed. This is very clever and technically advancesd marketting but is not balanced news provision. If you get a chance to watch someone called Jeremy Paxman he demonstrates a form of interviewing by setting the Rottweiler at both points of view to justify their positions as compared with Fox's version of setting a Rottwiler at one and a Basset hound puppy at the other, and then implying it was fair and balanced.

I'd suspect if your values tended to mirror those historical values, watching many of the other news media would leave you shaking your head over how derogatively those values are treated by NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. I think this reflects the on point of view reporting media you have in the US.

Generally, European thought is more in-line with the new, emerging "liberal" definition of "American", so they tend to sympathize with that (liberal) point of view, and castigate the historical beliefs of American identity. - you could be correct but I think most Europeans base their opinions on what they see as American actions.......the French may be the exception here.......


quote:




Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/28/2006 5:43:29 PM)

Meat / Sleaze

I think the census figures demonstrate that the UK remains predominantly caucasian but that the rate of child birth has shifted with higher proportion of non caucasians having a lot more children, and so the demographics will change significantly going forward. Also the non caucasians are very un-evenly spread across the UK. So in effect you could both be correct...........!



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/28/2006 7:37:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Meat / Sleaze

I think the census figures demonstrate that the UK remains predominantly caucasian but that the rate of child birth has shifted with higher proportion of non caucasians having a lot more children, and so the demographics will change significantly going forward. Also the non caucasians are very un-evenly spread across the UK. So in effect you could both be correct...........!


Where I live in this little of corner of London, being of white english descent is far from the norm, Similarly there are corners of the city where being anything other than white english is remarkable. I have also lived all over the UK, and travel extensively. Yes there are parts of the country where the ethnic ratios are different, but my beef was not with this, but the claim that 20% of births are of mixed race descent. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 3/4 of those mixed race births are where I would not notice any obvious difference, eg polish/french or thai/chinese that still leave me a 5% chance of seeing a child of more obvious mixed rave such as asian/african. I dont see this, and I think I do have a valid statistical universe to work from. Should I live in a remote village in the mountains of scotland I would admit that seeing someone of mixed race would be far more less ordinary. I would happily believe that 20% (or even more) of all births are of non-english descent without any trouble, but that many of mixed race I find difficult to swallow.

I suspect also knowing the way this government fudges it figures there is an awful lot of leeway in what constitutes mixed race :) It is quite possible that a 3rd generation UK citizen of Indian descent having offspring with an un-naturalized Indian immigrant constitutes mixed race, however I dont think even this could push the mixed race birth rate to 1 in 5.


Yes the spread is uneven, simply because most immigrants tend to settle in the larger cities where jobs, housing, education and all the other essentials are more prevelant and in the less desirable areas relatively affordable. This  I suspect would be a global phenomenon rather than unique to the UK. However the city I mentioned in another post as being of a white minority comes in at 22 in the list of most populated cities, simply because for a very long time whilst it had a reasonable infrastructure the property prices were at the much lower end of the scale



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/28/2006 7:52:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac


No two people will give you the same answer, I'm afraid.  I'd invite you to google "core American values", but I do have my opinions. - Will do when I get a chance

First, just as a general overview, here are some that I found (on a "liberal" site, by a "progessive" political thinker:


Primary values * individual responsibility * family security * honesty * fairness * freedom * work * spirituality

Secondary values * responsibility to help others * compassion * personal fulfillment * respect for authority * love of country


Personally, off the top of my head, I see key ones as:

Individuality - yes I agee but perhaps my observations would include that at the expence of others is also acceptable to a high degree
Personal responsibility - yes
Competitivness and Determination - yes - does this include the will to win......or the will to win by any means
Democratic processes - interesting one and clearly a core Western Value and differential from other global movements.
Non-intrusive government - yes, this one is to an outsider facinating and clearly a significant one.
Loyalty and Honor - I am pondering this one in light of your comments later.
Populism (Rooting for the Underdog/distaste of elites) - this one needs clarrification, the fraternity system, the protected / gated housing systems, private medicine provision, affordability of education, ......... this one I am not convinced of but accept that to many americans it is a truism......

What really concerns me is that here in the UK Is that the only one of these core values that seems to be present is populism, which rather than being a distaste of elites is more a case of a distaste for any who are not one of "us", us being our family, street, gang, social set, race, gender, religion or whatever, so rather than populism I would actually call it more an isolationism
quote:




In effect, there is a debate and fight going on in the US culture over the relative importance of each of these core values.  You'll often hear of the "culture war", and to me, this is the essence of what that means:  two different "sides", both fighting for their own definition of what "American" means.  Mud gets slung on both sides.

Fox News is generally in-line with the full historical definition (or at least the Jacksonian definition of that) of what constitutes an "American" and is one of the few major media outlets that operates on those assumptions.  I find the whole fair and balanced angle of Fox news highly entertaining. I would perhaps put it down as one of the demonstrations of American Elitism and cultural isolationism. If you turn the volume off and watch interviews the facial expression of the interviewer will immediately inform you whether the interviewee is a crack pot or an authoritative expert, turn the volume up and you will find in each case that the crack pot does not comply with the fox perspective. Liekwise the tome of voice will indicate whether the interviewee should be believed. This is very clever and technically advancesd marketting but is not balanced news provision. If you get a chance to watch someone called Jeremy Paxman he demonstrates a form of interviewing by setting the Rottweiler at both points of view to justify their positions as compared with Fox's version of setting a Rottwiler at one and a Basset hound puppy at the other, and then implying it was fair and balanced.

I'd suspect if your values tended to mirror those historical values, watching many of the other news media would leave you shaking your head over how derogatively those values are treated by NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. I think this reflects the on point of view reporting media you have in the US.

Generally, European thought is more in-line with the new, emerging "liberal" definition of "American", so they tend to sympathize with that (liberal) point of view, and castigate the historical beliefs of American identity. - you could be correct but I think most Europeans base their opinions on what they see as American actions.......the French may be the exception here.......



quote:





Broadcast media in this country is pretty much the same, the broadcasters, including the publicly owned one (for which read state dependant), have their own agendas and dismiss or castigate those who do not hold similar viewpoints. Which truly represent the thoughts of the man in the street? Well for this man in the street, none of them, I think that would hold true for most people who would give an honest opinion if asked. As for the Paxman interview technique, sure it looks good and impartial, but has he ever truly brought something new to the fore? I dont think so, but hell it sure looks like he is doing a good job of putting those politicians in their place. Did he rip Diana to shreds about the failure of her marriage and the whys and wherefores?  No, it is just as contrived and packaged as Fox is claimed to be above



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 12:37:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Yes there are parts of the country where the ethnic ratios are different, but my beef was not with this, but the claim that 20% of births are of mixed race descent. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that 3/4 of those mixed race births are where I would not notice any obvious difference, eg polish/french or thai/chinese that still leave me a 5% chance of seeing a child of more obvious mixed rave such as asian/african. I dont see this, and I think I do have a valid statistical universe to work from. Should I live in a remote village in the mountains of scotland I would admit that seeing someone of mixed race would be far more less ordinary. I would happily believe that 20% (or even more) of all births are of non-english descent without any trouble, but that many of mixed race I find difficult to swallow.



I have some trouble believing those stats myself but that is what I read in The Times and they claimed to get the figures from the census. I was thinking that maybe they mean London where over 40% of the population is non-white. I remember my daughter used to go to a school in east London where she and two others were the only pure white children in the school out of 500, about 300 being pure asian. The other school nearby had more pure white and pure black children and about 40% mixed but no asian. It's just difficult to come to a conclusion, I need to find the article that analysed the census figures but can't find it.



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 12:47:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy


Broadcast media in this country is pretty much the same, the broadcasters, including the publicly owned one (for which read state dependant), have their own agendas and dismiss or castigate those who do not hold similar viewpoints. Which truly represent the thoughts of the man in the street? Well for this man in the street, none of them, I think that would hold true for most people who would give an honest opinion if asked. As for the Paxman interview technique, sure it looks good and impartial, but has he ever truly brought something new to the fore? I dont think so, but hell it sure looks like he is doing a good job of putting those politicians in their place. Did he rip Diana to shreds about the failure of her marriage and the whys and wherefores?  No, it is just as contrived and packaged as Fox is claimed to be above


I've watched American news and I regularly watch Dutch, German, Belgium and French at different times, Paxman is pretty good, if the interviewee has been ducking and diving at least the interviewee knows feels discomfort and the audience can see it. I like his snarky voice when yet again a government minister can't be found to answer some charge or other. Contrived? All TV is contrived, it is the nature of it but Paxman is good at his job and he doesn't take sides.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 2:30:24 AM)

I agree with Sleazy that the claim that 1 in 5  births in the UK are of mixed race is IMPOSSIBLE to believe. The statistic is about as inaccurate as those that claim 2 % to 3 % inflation.

Edited out the rest because it had nothing to do with Carter/Middle East. Neither does the above point but I feel strongly it is true !



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 2:45:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I agree with Sleazy that the claim that 1 in 5  births in the UK are of mixed race is IMPOSSIBLE to believe. The statistic is about as inaccurate as those that claim 2 % to 3 % inflation.

Edited out the rest because it had nothing to do with Carter/Middle East. Neither does the above point but I feel strongly it is true !


White birth rate is declining, the birth rate of minorities is on the increase, there are now cities, Bradford and Leicester I believe where whites are in a minority to other ethnic groups. London is fast becoming a 50/50 city (8-9% of the population?). When I lived in east London such a statistic was not impossible to believe. When I lived in a small village in Yorkshire with not a coloured face in sight, it seemed impossible to believe.

Don't forget we are talking about birth rate not the population as a whole. The average age of ethnic minorities is a few years younger than the average age of whites from my recollection of the stats and certainly was the case in the stats for London that were circulated in the Probation service when I worked there.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 2:57:26 AM)

Agree with above post MC and I see it as one of the factors leading to the impending "difficulties" of irresponsibly allowing the UK to drift towards a mixed race society..

Incidently I live in an area where there are plenty of coloured immigrants AND asylum seekers.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 6:01:09 AM)

Racial Mix
From the UK census 2001 Ethnic minority had risen from 6% of population in 1991 to 9% in 2001. it was difficult to see the meaning of the "mixed" label as it appears to only refer to births and was 1.4% but this did not say whther it was births inside or outside of the UK. What the census would not clearly pick up would be the large White European influx which in the South East had dramatically changed Demographics in some areas, e.g. Hastings and Dover. Births were averaging 4.4 per Asian Family - higher than white families and so the accelerator factor would become evident in a few years time.

Interviwing -
Sleazy - the BBC gats criticised by Labour for biase towards Conservatives and from Tories for Bias towards the Left wing. In any group of programs you will get an even range of views that generally are given equivalent time and opportunity. That does not happen on any of the US TV or Radio stations I used Fox as an example but it is true of the others and of their Public Radio stations. They relly directly on people and companies paying them money and so ensuring that those people like the news they here the news coverage is oustandingly biased. As outlined above it is not just the content of the reporting it is the pantomime way that it is delivered - that shows the real depth of the biased reporting and interviewing. And then of course the self satisfied patronising little comments from the interviewer at the end.
Of course Paxman can also do that - he interviewed a US government official in connection who had come over to influence the EU and at the end of the interview Paxman turned to the camera and stated "what planet does he live on" 






FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 6:25:13 AM)

Bias at the BBC:

Extracts:

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

...

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Perhaps this is why people such as meatcleaver have such a dim view of the US.

FirmKY



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625