*DAMN R6 Forum

     American Culture (http://www.zompist.com/amercult.html)

     "The following is a first crack at an ostensive definition of 'American culture'-- things shared by the vast majority (let's say 90%) of native-born Americans. Many of these won't sound 'cultural' at all to Americans; they'll sound like just descriptions of the way things are. But each one of them would be contested in one or more non-American cultures."

A few really good points:

"You don't expect to hear socialism seriously defended. Communism, fuhgeddaboudit."

(Unless you are a Democrat....then Socialism sounds kinda nice)


"World War II was a just war, and (granted all the suffering of course) ended all right. It was a time when the country came together and did what was right. And instead of insisting on vengeance, the US very generously rebuilt Europe instead, with the Marshall Plan."

(I wish that most of the Governments of Europe actually appreciated the U.S. rebuilding it after WWII)


"Your country has never been conquered by a foreign nation."

(that's right, not EVER)


-GhostSniper Out.

Some things I wish were true, but aren't:

You think most problems could be solved if only people would put aside their prejudices and work together.

You expect the military to fight wars, not get involved in politics. You may not be able to name the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

You are distrustful of welfare and unemployment payments-- you think people should earn a living and not take handouts. But you would not be in favor of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.

I think the "unpacking white privilege" list is more important for people to read

World peace/people's racist views being abolished will never happen unless someone conquers the world and attempts to blend the cultures together. I think Alexander the Great had the right idea, conquering someone then keeping their religious beliefs respected and blending the cultures of the people he conquered. In my opinion this is the only way the above statements can be accomplished because no nation would put aside their prejudices and work together with another nation unless they had an alternative motive. Just my opinion.

Actually, I do think that way.  Remember, prejudice isn't just about race or sex.


Again, true for me.  I expect the military to fight wars, not get involved in politics.  And to the best of my knowledge, this is the case.  What has the military done to influence the body politic?  They are fighting the wars the politicians have pointed them towards, they are not trying to change the outcome of an election, or any other political decisions from what I can see.


Now I know that I've said that a few times.  I'm not in favor of tossing out the systems, I just want reform.  

It's funny that the three points you bring up as not being true, are to me.  Maybe you are just in that 10% Loth mentioned.

I'm actually not especially sure about this what so ever, but I would bet that a larger proportion of mac users are in that top 10%. Why? Mac's are traditionally more expensive, thus the user probably has more money, more money=more opputunity, and exposure to others ideas.

As to the list, I find myself agreeing with most of it, yet almost hating myself for agreeing. I want to move somewhere where they dont hold true....

     I'm amused that people's reactions are either pride or shame, when the list is purely a description of what is. I found most of the list matched its premise: things that an American sees as normal, since I found most of the list perfectly normal.

Pretty idealistic of you Buccaneer. I like idealism, I guess the way I approached this statement is a bit different. I'm unsure about the degree to which personal prejudices and biases can be set aside. I'm always willing to try of course, because good democracy requires good dialogue, but until I have more experience of this working I'm not too optimistic about the chances of that ever happening.

I have the same expectation, the real question here is about practice. The military has a heavy involvement in politics though. The pentagon and its contractors have lobbyists in congress to try to increase funding, and with Bush's carte blanche attitude toward military spending the military-industrial complex is nearing Cold War levels. There is far too much cronyism between the military and this current administration, especially regarding the conflicts of interest many of the military/political higher ups have with private industry. The relationship between the military and the current white house is mutually supportive. And now one of the primary Democrats running is Wesley Clark, a retired general, decreasing the possibility of improvement on this front even more.

I'd recognize that I am in a minority on this one, since I am supportive of welfare and some other more concrete forms of income redistribution. I think most Americans probably feel the same as you do about this one. The reason I lumped it in with those other ones was because I have genuine fears for these social safety nets that we built throughout the 20th century in America. Bush is big on privatization, and with the gigantic deficits he has created/will continue to create, cuts have to come somewhere. Large cuts are expected on social programs in this coming year before the election, undercutting Bush's reputation as a "compassionate" conservative.

I'm not opposed to reform, for increases in efficiency are always a good thing as long as they don't come at large cost to services or the equity to which they are applied. We'll see where this one goes in the future, but on first look I'm not sure if I like Bush's idea for making private savings accounts using social security money (proposed in the SOTU). I agree wholeheartedly that Medicare is bloated and in need of reform (I'd even agree to cuts  8) ). What I'm more fearful of in the medical arena is cuts to Medicaid, aka people that actually need it, rather than seniors whose prescription drug payments are cutting into the fund they were saving for their second boat in Florida.

Tasty, what we have here is you reading the statements through your liberal colored glasses.  Take them off and read the statements as they were written.  Don't color them with your views over the current administration.


There's your mistake.  You think I'm idealistic, but I'm not.  I said I agreed with the statement that problems could be solved IF they were set aside.  I didn't say it was easy, or going to happen at all.  Ever.

What it means is that prejudice is at the heart of most of our problems.  That's it.  Don't make it into something it's not.  You don't agree?  


There it is, you actually agree.  Read the statement.  You have expectations.  Remember, your premise was that these were false statements.  They are not.  Your personal expectations may not be met, but that doesn't have anything to do with the statement's validity.

Also, you are wrong about the rest of it too.  The fact that a conservative, Republican, fascist like Bush increases military spending, and uses the military, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Military influencing government.  That's the President doing his job (you may say he's doing a shitty job, but it is his job nonetheless).

Also, the Pentagon has no lobbyist.  Show me one.  The defense contractors do, yes, of course they do.  Just like every other large organization does.  But that too, is not the Military, that is big business.

Separate your facts and start pointing fingers in the right directions.  Lumping them all together is, to use a phrase, weaksause.  No kidding, it really makes you look stupid.


You have it again.  You called it false, but again, say that you agree most Americans would agree to it.  Wasn't that the point?  

Calling something false that you know isn't, just so you can raise your social viewpoints on it?  That's doing as much twisting as any politician, even the one currently in the White House.  Just goes to show that the far left twists things around as much as the far right does.  Long live the Centrists.

I'm not sure if I agree. It cuts to the heart about the most fundamental questions of human nature, and I haven't made up my mind.

The pentagon doesn't need its own lobbyist to be involved in politics. The pentagon is looking out for its own needs. I didn't bring many of my books with my to college this semester, so I don't have statistics etc, but I've seen/read enough about this problem to know that it does exist. Defense contractors have plenty of involvement and influence over the pentagon, the chiefs of staff, and the government. To pretend otherwise, that the government is completely separate from the military and the military is separate from the contractors, would be at the height of naivety.

I don't think you even remotely understood what I was trying to say with this one. I was agreeing that most Americans would agree to it, making it true and separating it from my original statement that lumped it in with the ones I considered false. Then I described why I feared that the systems may be going down the tubes despite the fact that most Americans support them. How is that twisting things around?

If you want to talk about being opportunistic, you should consider your own responses in this thread. We were having a pleasant discussion about a pretty inocuous list of truths, and after I explained why I felt like I did, you used the thread as an opportunity to "prove me wrong" and make ad hom attacks on my political persuasion and intelligence. When you act so aggressively in these forums in threads where there is no reason to, it brings the quality of discussion down considerably.

I completely understood what you were trying to say, in all of it.  I don't think you are the one understanding.

You picked three statements out of it and called them false, when you later agree that they are true in the context that they were meant.  You wrongly called them false as an opportunity to get on your political soap box about your opinions on how the current administration is performing in these areas.


Ok, but that doesn't make the statement false and you know it.  You making up your opinion on it doesn't mean that most Americans don't feel that way, does it?


1) You still admitted that you EXPECT the military to not be involved, which was what you called FALSE in your opening post.

2) You said in your second post that the Pentagon had lobbyist, now you say they don't need them.  "The pentagon and it's contractors have lobbyists in congress".  Your words, not mine.

3) Nice BS.  Plainly, Defense Contractors are not part of the military.  Their influence on politics IS NOT the military influencing politics, it's business influencing it.  To say otherwise is just pure bullshit at it's depth.  Stop trying to lump business in with the military.  Sure, they have influence over the military and over government, but that doesn't mean the military is involved in politics.  

Tell me one political decision that the US Military has pushed on the government?  Requesting budget isn't involved, and isn't really a political decision.  Getting involved were the words used, and that, to me says that publicly back a candidate, that they overthrow the government, or that they make laws.  They aren't doing any of this.  So tell me what political decisions the military was involved in making, please.

4) See number one, the statement that started it all was true and you do agree with it.


Considered?  Don't think so.  Called false?  Yes.


Your whole post was a twist.  You called three things false that were not.  All to jump on your soap box again, which had nothing to do with the real point of this topic (the point being what we think of as Americans and how that is reflected as American Culture).


I wasn't being opportunistic at all.  My first point was a straight up question of how you could call those things false.  I think I have more than proven that even you don't consider the statements false in the context of "most americans believing in them".

After you pretty much admitted that yes, most Americans would find these true (which makes your first post completely wrong) you get on your soap box to talk about how they don't work out.  

Any insults of mine that may have brought the discussion down were in direct correlation to yours, which also bring the discussion down (Idealistic?  Naive?) those aren't passive-aggressive?  Bullshit.  The difference is I don't use the more polite insults like that.  I call bullshit what it is.

See Tasty, I brought up your three "false" examples and pointed out how they were true for most Americans.  You didn't need to post your opinions on Bush writing blank checks to the military, as that had nothing to do with the discussion.  But if you are going to throw that crap in, why shouldn't I comment on it?  

You called them False statements, and you are incorrect in the context that they were given.  The statements were not about current political situations or administration, but about culture.  How we as Americans feel.  You may be in the 10% that doesn't agree with these, but you do agree that the majority of Americans feel this way.  You, sir, were the one to bring this discussion down to the level of bickering over the current situation, instead of talking about it as a cultural insight.  And there was nothing at all opportunistic in my pointing out that your first post was dead wrong (and that you were not reading it in context, but interpreting it through your liberal political agenda).