Clash of Civilizations

[American4Americ]

Cultural traits include

Government
Politics
Religion
Customs and Traditions
Social Organization
Arts
Economy
Language
Architecture
Food
Education

You don't believe that anyone here can name a single uniquely American cultural trait? OK, I will start with a broad one. An affinity toward sports such as football, basketball, and baseball. While this does not encompass everyone, no trait ever does.

Being the first country to have ever put John Locke's ideas into wide scale practice, the idea of unalienable rights, that is to say, rights that the government may not infringe upon is a uniquely American cultural trait. We have benefitted greatly by getting a jump on everyone else in this respect.

I could go on but there are plenty of American unique traits and there are even more once you separate the different cultures within America.

A LOT OF societies have an affinity for sports. John Locke's ideas were predated to that of ancient Greece (societies such as Syracuse frequently restored their democratic tradition to respecting the rights of man after a dictator abused power), and to a lesser extent, the Roman and Carthaginian Republics. The ideas that a government shouldn't infringe on natural rights is not in fact, profoundly American. Another example would be the constitutional monarchy of the Britain during the same time. It was parliament passing the ridiculous laws in the U.S, not King George.

Locke was no friend of Greek democracy and there is a reason the Romans couldn't maintain a republic but we could. Look to the Constitution. And note how I did not say "sports" but sports such as (fill in the blank). This is too easy, it really is.

Locke may have been no friend of Greek democracy, just as some of the framers weren't, but the fact remains the ideas of natural rights were already present before him.

 

[editec]

WOW!

Reading this through is terrifying for the history teacher in me.

The stuff you people "know" that is total nonsense is simply astounding.

Educate yourselves, people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your take on history is skewered by your political correctness...........America was founded by people seeking religious freedom which was practically non-existent in a Europe dominated by popery and English replicas of it.

Our forefathers feared Catholicism with good reason.

Yet in hindsight nothing untoward happened did it? The Irish became regular old Americans and an asset to our nation in spite of the discrimination. Bad example on your part.

I have nothing against the Irish. You are attempting to trot out a red herring.

Huh? Your prejudices and ignorance cloud your point. Unless you've decided the culture the Irish, Germans, Italians and Chinese who came to our shores in droves during the 19th Century all had the same culture as the predominate English. Oh, and did you know that the Irish, Germans and Italians are mostly Catholic?

Oh, and what is your point? Apparently hate, fear and divisive rhetoric, none of which does anything but make our nation weaker and less safe. You and your kind (and there is nothing kind about you) are one of the major problems facing our nation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet in hindsight nothing untoward happened did it? The Irish became regular old Americans and an asset to our nation in spite of the discrimination. Bad example on your part.

I have nothing against the Irish. You are attempting to trot out a red herring.

Huh? Your prejudices and ignorance cloud your point. Unless you've decided the culture the Irish, Germans, Italians and Chinese who came to our shores in droves during the 19th Century all had the same culture as the predominate English. Oh, and did you know that the Irish, Germans and Italians are mostly Catholic?

Oh, and what is your point? Apparently hate, fear and divisive rhetoric, none of which does anything but make our nation weaker and less safe. You and your kind (and there is nothing kind about you) are one of the major problems facing our nation.

Bump.

 

[American4Americ]

European immigrants made up the great and overwhelming majoirty of our immigrants up to 1965 when LBJ rammed through a radical change in our immigration policy that for the first time allowed third world immigrants to come here in huge numbers...not even to mention all the illegal immigrants from 3rd world nations that were allowed to slip in.

I see. Let's see how the NATIVES felt about radical changes in our immigration policy:

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876."

I know, I know they were Injuns , so they had no rights the white folks had to recognize.

.

Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours. They got wiped out because their cultures were weak and un-advanced. How does this deviate from any other cultures in the history of the world? It doesn't. But according to leftists we own the monopoly on terror. Although, they were already fighting amongst themselves wiping out full enemy tribes well before the white man arrived. How about you hold the white man to the same standard? Why must it always be the victor that gets the blame?

Now, should we adopt the same immigration policy that lead to the demise of the Indians? NO!

This just makes you sound retarded, "Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours." is honestly comical. Please don't associate with real conservatives such as myself.

 

[American4Americ]

To what extent is Greek culture influenced by the very long period of Ottoman rule? I have heard it suggested that Greece never quite recovered.

Considering 300 to 400 years of occupation depending on the area, Greek culture was relatively unscathed. Religion, more than anything else preserved almost all aspects of Greek culture. Turkish influence is strongest is food and music, but a strong sense of identity kept Greek culture intact.

In retrospect, I can assuredly say that Greek, therefore Western civilization, had a far greater effect on the Seljuks and Ottomans than had on the Greeks. After all, the Mongols became Chinese and not the Chinese, Mongols.

Didn't the Celts, Romans, and Germans nearly destroy Greek civilization several times?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see. Let's see how the NATIVES felt about radical changes in our immigration policy:

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876."

I know, I know they were Injuns , so they had no rights the white folks had to recognize.

.

Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours. They got wiped out because their cultures were weak and un-advanced. How does this deviate from any other cultures in the history of the world? It doesn't. But according to leftists we own the monopoly on terror. Although, they were already fighting amongst themselves wiping out full enemy tribes well before the white man arrived. How about you hold the white man to the same standard? Why must it always be the victor that gets the blame?

Now, should we adopt the same immigration policy that lead to the demise of the Indians? NO!

This just makes you sound retarded, "Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours." is honestly comical. Please don't associate with real conservatives such as myself.

You might perceive yourself to be a ‘real’ conservative, unfortunately the ignorance, hate, and racism you cite is attracted to conservative dogma.

This doesn’t mean that dogma is racist, of course, but it is troubling that racists most often identify as conservative and republican.

The task for you and other ‘real’ conservatives, then, is to examine your dogma to discover why.

 

[Contumacious]

Cultures always change. But I believe we are regressing. The Muslims? They've been regressing for a very long time.

HUH?

How the fuck so?

Abu Dhabi

You can thank the British for that one. They are among the few Arab nations/cities that have accepted western culture. Politically, though, they are still backwards. They are the exception, not the rule. But you knew this. Look below. Most Arab/Muslim cultures are regressive.

They are? Should we then bomb the fuck out of them?

.

 

[Peterf]

Our culture has been radically changing the last 50 years or so. And I think the Islamic culture have been as well. What we see as a clash of civilizations doesnt seem to be a clash as much as the birthing pains for a new one.

Now will the new culture be good or bad? I don't know. Im working on a good one. But who knows.

If Islamic culture has changed over the last 50 years it has been for the worse. Extreme positions have gained strength and the somewhat mythical 'moderate Muslims' have all but disappeared.

Imo a synthesis between tolerant Western pluralism and Islam is a chimera.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who have lived and worked in the Arab world over the past 60 years.. They wouldn't agree with you.

Are you familiar with SUSRIS?

SUSRIS

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

 

[Publius1787]

[/B]


HUH?

How the fuck so?

Abu Dhabi

You can thank the British for that one. They are among the few Arab nations/cities that have accepted western culture. Politically, though, they are still backwards. They are the exception, not the rule. But you knew this. Look below. Most Arab/Muslim cultures are regressive.

They are? Should we then bomb the fuck out of them?

.

Hell, no! They're doing a good enough job of eradicating themselves without us offering them protection via reverse colonization.

 

[Publius1787]

Considering 300 to 400 years of occupation depending on the area, Greek culture was relatively unscathed. Religion, more than anything else preserved almost all aspects of Greek culture. Turkish influence is strongest is food and music, but a strong sense of identity kept Greek culture intact.

In retrospect, I can assuredly say that Greek, therefore Western civilization, had a far greater effect on the Seljuks and Ottomans than had on the Greeks. After all, the Mongols became Chinese and not the Chinese, Mongols.

Didn't the Celts, Romans, and Germans nearly destroy Greek civilization several times?

I see. Let's see how the NATIVES felt about radical changes in our immigration policy:

"In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876."

I know, I know they were Injuns , so they had no rights the white folks had to recognize.

.

Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours. They got wiped out because their cultures were weak and un-advanced. How does this deviate from any other cultures in the history of the world? It doesn't. But according to leftists we own the monopoly on terror. Although, they were already fighting amongst themselves wiping out full enemy tribes well before the white man arrived. How about you hold the white man to the same standard? Why must it always be the victor that gets the blame?

Now, should we adopt the same immigration policy that lead to the demise of the Indians? NO!

This just makes you sound retarded, "Yes they were savages who's cultures were not compatible to ours." is honestly comical. Please don't associate with real conservatives such as myself.

One observation is retarded, the same observation reversed is valid. Amazing how that worked out!

 

[Publius1787]

A LOT OF societies have an affinity for sports. John Locke's ideas were predated to that of ancient Greece (societies such as Syracuse frequently restored their democratic tradition to respecting the rights of man after a dictator abused power), and to a lesser extent, the Roman and Carthaginian Republics. The ideas that a government shouldn't infringe on natural rights is not in fact, profoundly American. Another example would be the constitutional monarchy of the Britain during the same time. It was parliament passing the ridiculous laws in the U.S, not King George.

Locke was no friend of Greek democracy and there is a reason the Romans couldn't maintain a republic but we could. Look to the Constitution. And note how I did not say "sports" but sports such as (fill in the blank). This is too easy, it really is.

Locke may have been no friend of Greek democracy, just as some of the framers weren't, but the fact remains the ideas of natural rights were already present before him.

But never applied.

 

[Shaarona]

If Islamic culture has changed over the last 50 years it has been for the worse. Extreme positions have gained strength and the somewhat mythical 'moderate Muslims' have all but disappeared.

Imo a synthesis between tolerant Western pluralism and Islam is a chimera.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who have lived and worked in the Arab world over the past 60 years.. They wouldn't agree with you.

Are you familiar with SUSRIS?

SUSRIS

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

 

[Publius1787]

There are tens of thousands of Americans who have lived and worked in the Arab world over the past 60 years.. They wouldn't agree with you.

Are you familiar with SUSRIS?

SUSRIS

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

Because waging Jihad against the West in WWI wasn't screwed up before the British retaliated?

 

[Iceman]

Actually, again playing Devil's advocate, there were several large immigration waves from arguably third world areas prior to the 1960s. For example, the American Party "No-Nothings" wanted to stop the poor Europeans from coming to America. The Irish, for example, were pretty much third world, and compared to blacks, and considered worthless leeches, as were many Germans.

Ireland is not the Third World, nor is Germany. And the Irish are White European Christians, as are Germans. Very different than the majority non-white third world immigration we experience today.

Also, far less immigrants came in overall. There are more illegal immigrants in the country today than ever came from the whole of Europe legally between 1800 and 1900.

Very poor comparison on your part.

During the 19th century, Ireland was comparably poor to many "third world" countries.

Well, of course our living standards were lower in the 19th century. But the fact that the Third World today has living standard comparable to that of the 19th century is a poor reflection on the third world countries today, not the other way around.

 

[Redfish]

There are tens of thousands of Americans who have lived and worked in the Arab world over the past 60 years.. They wouldn't agree with you.

Are you familiar with SUSRIS?

SUSRIS

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

The Shah was bringing Iran into the modern world, freeing its people, and eliminating the radical muslim fanatics.

you may not like his methods, but he was doing what it took to modernize that country,

Now they are moving back into the 11th century---but with nukes thanks to obama.

 

[Shaarona]

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

The Shah was bringing Iran into the modern world, freeing its people, and eliminating the radical muslim fanatics.

you may not like his methods, but he was doing what it took to modernize that country,

Now they are moving back into the 11th century---but with nukes thanks to obama.

Overthrowing the Mossadeeg was a huge set back for Iran.. and paying 16 cents on oil revenues was just theft.

 

[Redfish]

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

The Shah was bringing Iran into the modern world, freeing its people, and eliminating the radical muslim fanatics.

you may not like his methods, but he was doing what it took to modernize that country,

Now they are moving back into the 11th century---but with nukes thanks to obama.

Overthrowing the Mossadeeg was a huge set back for Iran.. and paying 16 cents on oil revenues was just theft.

With any revolution there are good things and bad things---overall, the Shah did good things for Iran. If he had reamained in power Iran would be a modern free country today and not a hotbed for radical muslim terrorism.

 

[Contumacious]

No, I had never heard of SUSIS. I googled it and found it to be a Saudi propaganda site.

I Have lived and worked in two Muslim countries, Iran and Kuwait. The experience only strengthened my distrust of Islam. I hope you will forgive for not being entirely convinced that those tens of thousands of Americans came home unanimously loving Islam. I doubt if the US diplomats held hostage in the Tehran embassy did, to cite but one example.

SUSRIS is an excellent source of accurate information..

Well you can see for yourself at ARAMCO Annuitants or ARAMCO Brats.

The Shah was a bad actor and the Brits screwed up in Iran.

The Shah was bringing Iran into the modern world, freeing its people, and eliminating the radical muslim fanatics.

you may not like his methods, but he was doing what it took to modernize that country,

Now they are moving back into the 11th century---but with nukes thanks to obama.

Really? Why was he forced into exile? Why did they want to execute him?

.

 

[JQPublic1]

Diversity destroys national unity, this is correct John. Hence, why multiculturalism will continue to fail as it has in the past.

Have you ever been to Brazil? You should go there! Perhaps there you will see firsthand an exception to your premise!
Your dislike of multiculturalism seems specious considering that America is founded on the idea of plurality. The former British Colony opened the immigration door to Germans, Poles, Romanians and other diverse cultures from Europe. Most of which were former enemies over the centuries

You mean Brazil, the country where they decapitate soccer referees, the country that had riots with millions of people recently?

Typical narrow mindedness! Judge an entire nation by actions of a few criminals? Are you forgetting the heydays of the KKK where lynching Blacks almost became a national past time? Some of the bodies were still clad in the uniforms of American soldiers.

Yes, I have been there, and outside of the upper class area where I stayed in Sao Paulo, I had no interest to see the "joys of diversity" in the ghettos.

Too bad, you would have seen how harmoniously poor and middle classed Brazilians of all
colors live

You do realize rich Brazilians (mostly White), pay very high sums of money to stay away from the rich multiculturalism right? LOL

Mostly White? Hmmmm! Your definition of White changes so often it’s hard to know which group of Caucasians you are referring to.
I guess, by your random assessment, even rich gypsies are magically bestowed with the mantle of Whiteness.

In fact, from those I know in the south of Brazil, they want to leave the non-white poorer northern half of Brazil and form their own country.

So, they would abandoned the millions of less affluent Caucasians? Who will cook their food and clean their houses?

Letting in small amounts of Poles and Germans in the 1800s is not comparable to what we have today. One, they were White, these immigrants mostly aren't

There you go with that “White” myth again. I do however, agree that most Hispanics from Mexico are mostly Indians who speak Spanish. In their minds that language links them to Whiteness… regardless of their Amerindian/Asian ancestry. Many others are Mestizos and, indeed, share genetic affinity with Spaniards and American Tourists.

.

Two, there are more illegal immigrants in the country today than there were total immigrants who came into America from Europe between 1800 and 1900.

Well, for the American farmers and other related businesses, that cheap labor means higher profits for themselves. There is no loyalty where profit rears its head. Instead we are told that fruit picking is work most Americans won’t do. Who can prove it isn’t true?