Agree or GET OUT!!!!! (6091 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: -0.43 on 314 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Queen Mama <Queenxtc_.at.webtv.net> (View user info) at 2003-06-30 20:14:42 EDT
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. Now as we all begin to celebrate our fourth of July holiday, in rememberance of our freedom, we must also sadly worry about terroist attacks on our great nation.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought and fought for our freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! Americans do not frequent other countries and expect them to speak our language, so it should not be expected of us.
"In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. And, YES! we have the right to display it where ever and when ever we choose, we are proud to be who we are!
If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
Queen
User Reviews
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-26 16:48:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree. I had fun
Submitted by Famous Mortimer at 2004-03-25 19:07:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Americans do not frequent other countries and expect them to speak our language..." Your head is up your ass.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2004-03-25 18:57:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
man i enjoyed the argument i had with yidele on this.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-03-25 18:36:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hairsphincter?................weren't you the american history regurgitating Michael Bolton Clone in "GOOD WILL HUNTING"?...........Do you like apples?
Submitted by DarthFaded (user info) at 2004-03-25 18:10:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Um the one thing that I have to say about your post is that you are incorrect as to the nature of the creation of our nation. We were not founded on Christian Morals. In fact it is a well known fact that most of our founding fathers were in fact Aetheist. Jefferson and Franklin to name a couple.
Don't get me wrong I am a Christian. I have had this discussion many times as to the nature of government the problem is that the topic of Religion in the political forum as been extremely jaded. the 1st amendment is very clear as to the meaning of this aspect:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Yes the government cannot make any rules to uphold a religion, however also cannot prohibit it at all. This is where that whole separation of church and state thing comes in. I say that this topic is jaded because I personally believe that, when adressing the topic of say Prayer in school, by prohibiting the study of any religious concepts, in addition to not permitting spiritual activity in school, one could interpret that as a prohibition of free excersize.To do the opposite some would say that it is infringing on their beliefs. I don't think that this topic can bee easily equalized to uphold all aspects of the 1st amendment.
Just to add to the general concepts of your post. my 2 cents if you will.
This country is a Melting Pot, not a stew, as an immigrant you are given the ability to adapt the culture and augment your own. Not given a private litlte bubble by which you are entitled to live your life prescribing a belief that the Constitution gives you the right to exploit the government and go about doign things the way that you did before you came here.
I will say this. Being able to speak English should be a requirement for citizenship.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-03-25 17:59:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Man, this was from the good old days.
Good times.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-25 17:39:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Pathetic
Submitted by Melany (user info) at 2004-03-25 15:34:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Whoops, sorry, forgot to rank. Crazy reviews!
Submitted by Melany (user info) at 2004-03-25 15:32:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow...
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-03-25 15:10:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ok, i admit... i only read the first line of this post. (pressed for time right now)
but that line alone gets a +2
Submitted by Luckystar (user info) at 2004-03-25 15:01:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i'm sorry that PLUS 2 is the highest i can rank this!!!
YA queen mama!
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Submitted by lawryde (user info) at 2004-03-25 14:54:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Wow, you need a hug
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-25 14:52:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Perfect. I couldent have said it better.
Dont like this country?
LEAVE!!
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-03-25 14:40:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you really write this? I got it in an e-mail forward a while back and it fucking set me off.
Submitted by Queen (user info) at 2003-08-07 16:08:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
LOL Insane, You know what originally prompted me to write this post? All that shit that went down in florida about the arabic woman that wanted to keep her viel over her face for her drivers licence picture..lol. I later became more educated on the matter, and found out she was an american who had converted to Muslim or whatever it is, who was doing that...lol.
But I gave up about a month or so ago trying to keep up with all the different view points and arguments that were spurring up over the subject. It was very interesting and VERY informative to read peoples replies though. Shit if anything, there is one big history lesson throughout the replies of this post....lol.
Queen
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2003-08-06 04:47:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Man, reading through the replies to this post was quite tedious, but they took amazing turns.
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2003-08-06 04:43:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-07-19 08:25:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I am not particularly intelligent" - yidele
THEN I MUST HAVE THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE OF A SMALL RODENT
********************************
hahahahahahaahahaah
I feel the same way.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-07-19 08:25:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"I am not particularly intelligent" - yidele
THEN I MUST HAVE THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE OF A SMALL RODENT
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-19 07:31:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
actually, yidele the whole "japanese taking a shit" thing was YOUR example. and me saying that you were more than intelligent enough to understand the context of my definition of, again, YOUR example, was not brownnosing - it was a statement of fact (like everything else ive been saying on this topic).
the examples that I provided consisted of art, literature, food and music; whilst the best you could come up with in your frantic scratchings for an argument were bowel movements, and their relative worth. and as far as SHOWING you its relevance within the definition of culture - you already did when you broached that topic, and if youll re-read my last post, youll note that i conceded that japanese potty traing can be used as a "broad example of culture".
"Either your definition is true, which means that your argument is false ( as it denies the defintion) or the argument is right in denying the definition, which makes the definition false."
im afraid its neither. my only error was discussing your ridiculous example. so, yes japanese potty training CAN be used as an example of culture, as there are certain socially transmitted behaviour patterns involved. i rejected this assertion out of hand, as i guess i just got used to rejecting everything youve said so far, because its all been shit. so you can drop this line of argument, its been shot down, much like everything else youve said.
still harping about "totality"? yes it is kinda vague, ill give you that, but "culture" itself is a vague term, a term that encompasses a great many things (ie: more than merely ethnicity, history and language), and your request for only a "concise" argument (as opposed to a concise and DEFINITIVE one) is a relection of your misunderstanding of the word. as for a concise (and definitive) definition:
"The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization". let me interpret this for you again: this is what the majority of any bunch of people (catergorised by many different factors ie: ethnicity, language, nationality, history, economic background, social background) do, say (and how they say it), think, sing, write, paint or eat. and yes, this can include more mundane things like how they shit, how they eat etc.
big macs characterise US cuisine, eminem characterises US music, steven king characterises US literature. all these things are a part of a distinctly US culture, and are widely recognisable around the globe.
i hope ive been some assistance to you in understanding english, today...
Submitted by Creepo8 (user info) at 2003-07-18 17:44:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i give you a 2 for all the wonderful responses (from others).
your views, however, make me want scream.
you are the person who goes to brazil and asks in spanish for a taco.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-18 16:53:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and it isn't pedantry that's the last refuge of a loosing argument - declaring that "you are more than intelligent enough to understand the context of my attempted clarification" or other qualification of your own formerly chiseled in stone opinion which now has to be reinterpreted by applying some context that I'm apparently intelligent enough to understand is.
Just to make things sparkling clear, brownnosing will get you nowhere. I am not particularly intelligent, but I can smell bullshit from a mile away & your attempted clarification is nothing else but an example of not particularly convincing special pleading. No, intelligence isn't necessary to understand this argument. Either your definition is true, which means that your argument is false ( as it denies the defintion) or the argument is right in denying the definition, which makes the definition false. This would be all dandy, if it weren't for the fact that you claim your argument is based on the definition which it plainly denies.
All in all, what you have here is neither a concise definition ( since it has such holes) nor an honest argument - since it can't keep to the definition it's based on.
Now, could you please explain how categoricaly denying an idea proves that idea's validity, when the denial is based on the idea as a definition? Sounds like another one of those "dialectics of nature/ materialist dialectics" systems which would have each thing contain it's opposite...you'd make a good, loyal marxist.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-18 16:38:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
actually, iddqd, if you insist that yours is a concise definition & if I ( as I did ), show an example which your definition qualifies but which you reject out of hand ( as you did ), this shows that either your argument is not really based on the definition provided OR that the definiton itself isn't worth the proverbial "cultural" shit.
You have contradicted the very basis for your argument - consequently you are the one that has to either fix it or throw it out with the slops. I don't have to explain this to anyone else - it is enough to know that you are as full of shit as a japanese latrine & that your vague "totality" definition is so ill-stated that you yourself deny its validity in your argument.
Of course I expect you to respond in the same manner you've responded since you realized that you stepped on your own dick - by saying "no it isnt im afraid" - but saying/writing this is not the same as demonstrating; so then, SHOW ME how you can reconcile your definition ( as stated ) of culture with your qualification of japanese potty training & attendant results as NOT culture.
P.s - we are discussing your definition of culture because you're the one that claims that it has one ( ie. a concise, enumerative definition ). I have shown you an example which is an apparent exception to your definition & if you really intend on defending that shapeless, vague steraming pile You HAVE TO show how your denial of cultural status to potty training & its results makes sense in the context of your definition. THAT is why we're discussing your definition. We can go back to discussing my assertions - always provided that you either resolve the conflict YOU HAVE WITH YOUR OWN DEFINITION or acknowledge that your definition, your argument or both are indeed as full of shit as a christmass turkey.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-17 04:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
weak.
you are more than intelligent enough to understand the context of my attempted clarification on YOUR shitty example (pun intended). i note that in this last post youve completely abandoned your ideas of culture, preferring instead to discuss the actual one (the one i provided).
ok, so you want to get pedantic, it is the last refuge of a losing argument, but i cant blame you for that. youve been baling a sinking ship for quite some time now, and have done quite well, but even the band has got their shit together and are hitting the life-boats, so now its time for you, too.
so, yes, yidele, under the definition of culture, taking a dump can be used as a broad example of culture. but the further example tht i made still holds (that of the shit as art thing). so you have got a minor point off me, but its your only one, and a hollow one at that.
"It is enough to demonstrate one exception in order to dismiss this vague "totality"."
no it isnt im afraid, but you gave it a go, and thats the main thing.
" May it rest in peace together with the notion of "national" culture in general and american culture in particular. "
from this i get the impression that i think that nations have fenced-in, fortress-like cultures, that are theirs and theirs only. i dont. i think that different nations have distinct parts of a cultural whole. ie. US culture is heavily influenced by europe, as well as influences from all over the world, but has elements that are distictively "american".
this is the same for every country on the planet. my contention is, that more elements that are distinctively "american" are more visible and common in more countries around the world than any other nation.
ipso facto, toto
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-14 21:40:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you two please get a room already?
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-14 15:40:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sorry , Iddqd, but this is where your argument must end - either that, or acknowledge that taking a dump is an example of culture.
It's really simple --- you can't get away from your own definition, which states that:
"...The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
other products of human work and thought.These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty..."
we know that potty training is a socially transmitted behavior pattern, we know that it is a product of work & thought. By the definition you quoted, it must constitute a part of culture of a specific period, class, community, or population
BUT
You deny that the expression of this socially transmitted, purposefull pattern of grunting & straining is an example of culture, thereby denying either your argument's or the integrity of your definition. You can't have it both ways, mister.
Quod Erat Demonstratum
afterword:
You use the definition quoted - you quoted it as the "CURRENT dictionary" definition, and you sweeten the deal by claiming that "... culture is the result of the expression of human thought, emotion, and effort, no matter how unsavoury" - you add that "...[you are] so confident ... that [your] argument will hold up, no matter what CURRENT dictionary [you] use...". As you are no doubt by now seeing, NOT all "...socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought..." can qualify as culture. Turds don't & turd-making doesn't either. This of course doesn't mean much as far as positing a concise definition for culture is concerned, but we do now know that THIS, your definition isn't it. It is enough to demonstrate one exception in order to dismiss this vague "totality". May it rest in peace together with the notion of "national" culture in general and american culture in particular.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2003-07-14 14:39:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
plus 2 for this sweet ass argument.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-14 10:29:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"and yet the fact that the Japanese or more broadly asians, eliminate in the crouching position is:
1) a learned behaviour pattern propagated within their specific societies by a custom known as potty training
2) the prefered mode of elimination - choice of the majority
3) is something they do
And yet, despite the obvious qualification of this act by your own definition, YOU AGREE that a bowel movement is not an example of culture, unless "... someone was to train themselves to produce particular notes and tunes with their flatulence, and to try and compose music for this, then this becomes culture..."
You have just denied the validity of your own definition"
in no way does this deny the validity of my argument. the original example was tenuous at best, this further "qualification" of what was already a over-stretched metaphor, is taking it beyond the bounds of reason. people taking a shit does not a culture make, no matter how they do it. just like eating rice doesnt equate with culture if you eat it with chop-sticks, instead of a spoon.
we ALL have to take a shit. the point i was making, which you either missed or chose to ignore (and based on your arguments to date id say it was the latter), was that if someone attempted to make music or art out of their flatulence or faeces, THEN it becomes culture: merely taking a dump isnt culture, becuase it is generically human, but to create something, to try and convey meaning using this medium IS. this is something you havent gotten from the start - the medium itself isnt important, the thought and work behind it is whats important, and what it symbolises.
"You've been very patient ( or stubborn) in your defence of the indefensible, Iddqd. You are nevertheless as wrong as is the basic assumption made by the writers of many dictionary definitions which attempt to capture the ineffable ( or the not completely effable, as the case may be) in a "concise" definition of something like honour, art, beauty or any of a number of other ephemeral concepts which nevertheless could be defined properly if it were only possible come to a universaly acceptable standard.
Such is NOT the case with culture. Culture comes into the english language via the latin root culture which is synonymous with cultivation or tending ( viz the earlier definition i gave ) and all of it's subsequent meaning is derived from that. The reason I gave an aerlier definition was to show you that such definitions do exist and that in and of itself, a dictionary definition is at most a reference, a starting point in delving, divining the meaning behind this complex term"
and yet youve tried to put this, in your own words "complex term" into three myopic little categories. do i detect hypocrisy?
i used the current definition of the term "culture" (in its context with regards to society and not horticulture), because this is how the word is defined in the context of modern english. i dont care how the romans used it, i dont even care how shakespeare used it, i care how its used today, NOW. and now, the word culture is accpeted by the vast majority as being (insert definition)
culture is the result of the expression of human thought, emotion, and effort.
additionally, these things are simultaneously influenced by, and independent of, factors like ethnicity, history, and language. while those three factors do play a significant role in the development of global cultures, they are not the be-all and end-all of the story. the US has a comparitevely short history as a nation (as does australia), however the us has produced cultures that are distincively its own, whilst being influenced by other cultures. music being the most visible of these. "american" music dominates the world. ALL popular genres are heavily influenced by music that originated in the US.
"Incidenatly, this is why Kobe Bryant Jerseys, Coca Cola or BigMacs aren't culture. They're not even copies of an original idea, but pretty much the lowest common market denominator - commodities. Another example of marketing & design success, the Kalashnikov, aren't culture either. There's are a lot more of them on the international arms market than any other arms, and yet one doesn't hear anyone complaining about Soviet Cultural Imperialism ( and didn't even when the soviets still existed). We could multiply examples of commercial success, but what it comes down to is that producing a desired commodity does not mean anything when it comes to culture. It makes one a successfull merchant or industrialist which is not the same thing"
first of all, i think you may have heard some grumbling by nations like uzbekistan, afganistan and the like about soviet cultural imperialism, during the iron curtain days - but thats another argument for another day.
kobe bryant jerseys do represent an original idea - basketball, a sport invented by a canadian, but one that is intrinsically linked with the US, and US culture. this is a sport that has its own distinctive culture - unlike that of any other sport (i have played it (and played it very well) for about 12 years), and kobe bryant represents that culture. by extension his jersey represents that culture; so when palestinians burn US flags, whilst wearing kobe brant jerseys, they are merely highlighting the dominance of the US and its culture - theyre basically wearing the flag on their back.
not only does the US have its own culture, yidele, it dominates the world.
nice try.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-13 18:33:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Incidenatly, this is why Kobe Bryant Jerseys, Coca Cola or BigMacs aren't culture. They're not even copies of an original idea, but pretty much the lowest common market denominator - commodities. Another example of marketing & design success, the Kalashnikov, aren't culture either. There's are a lot more of them on the international arms market than any other arms, and yet one doesn't hear anyone complaining about Soviet Cultural Imperialism ( and didn't even when the soviets still existed). We could multiply examples of commercial success, but what it comes down to is that producing a desired commodity does not mean anything when it comes to culture. It makes one a successfull merchant or industrialist which is not the same thing.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-13 18:08:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You've been very patient ( or stubborn) in your defence of the indefensible, Iddqd. You are nevertheless as wrong as is the basic assumption made by the writers of many dictionary definitions which attempt to capture the ineffable ( or the not completely effable, as the case may be) in a "concise" definition of something like honour, art, beauty or any of a number of other ephemeral concepts which nevertheless could be defined properly if it were only possible come to a universaly acceptable standard.
Such is NOT the case with culture. Culture comes into the english language via the latin root culture which is synonymous with cultivation or tending ( viz the earlier definition i gave ) and all of it's subsequent meaning is derived from that. The reason I gave an aerlier definition was to show you that such definitions do exist and that in and of itself, a dictionary definition is at most a reference, a starting point in delving, divining the meaning behind this complex term.
Incidentaly, since culture, whatever it is, is definitely older than both yours and mine definition by several degrees of magnitude, it could be well said that they ( the definitions) are equally right or equally mistaken as they were both "the definition" at one time, and other definitions, perhaps even more contradictory than these two seem to be, are sure to arise. So much for dictionary definitions which have as much to do with the essence of the thing as does a badly drawn stick-diagram of a man has with a human being. Dictionary "definitions" of ephemeral concepts are at most a badly drawn allegory, we can trust them when they're describing a simple object, but to put one's faith in them or hold them up as a paragon of truth & a template for reality is a mistake.
In your valiant defense of the indefensible, you have made a number of statements which defy logic, but since the simplest & earliest statement regharding elimination is one which we've agreed on ( that is that a bowel movement is not an example of culture) will serve, let me therefore demonstrate where it is your argument clashes with the definition you yourself provided:
In your definition of culture you state that "culture: the predominating attitudes and behaviour patterns of a particular population, group, or society. that is, what the MAJORITY of a bunch of people from a particular group (ie. united states citizens) think, say, write, read, paint, watch, play, cook, eat, or do..."
and yet the fact that the Japanese or more broadly asians, eliminate in the crouching position is:
1) a learned behaviour pattern propagated within their specific societies by a custom known as potty training
2) the prefered mode of elimination - choice of the majority
3) is something they do
And yet, despite the obvious qualification of this act by your own definition, YOU AGREE that a bowel movement is not an example of culture, unless "... someone was to train themselves to produce particular notes and tunes with their flatulence, and to try and compose music for this, then this becomes culture..."
You have just denied the validity of your own definition.
___________________________________________________________
You did so instinctively, since instinctively you know that dabbling with feces isn't culture, no matter what your weak & overly general definition says about it - and you tried to convay that something else, so,me aspiration to express was necessary to qual;ify learned behaviour as culture. You are right in your instinctive assertion that behaviour patterns by themselves do not a culture make.
While you were busy repeating the dictionary definition ( which is to say not a definition at all ) I was thinking about a way to see what culture is, or what could be considered culture. Logic gives us many tools to verify the validity of an argument, alas when we reach for such definitions when the object being defined can neither be described by exhausting all its atributes nor circumscribed with certainty ( as your "totality" tries & fails to do) what we can do is point at things we know NOT to be culture.
This is why I haven't provided a concise definition of what culture is - because the myriad permutations of oryginal human creativity & expression are not to be enumerated, we can however point to things which are NOT examples of it. I fully stand behind my assertion that a mass-produced anything is not an example of culture. Conversely, a handcrafted original as a means of expression IS an example, even if it is a primitive kitch. This assertion is based on the qualification that art, as a means of expression is a part of culture. While the original masterpiece is art, you cannot say that even the most clever of photocopies of an original masterpiece is anything but a clever copy & not the masterpiece. Copies aren't art.
What then remains is to divine what is art & that is a task considerably more difficult than defining what is culture. Suffice it to say that art doesn't come into being by acclamation but possess within it some quality which is universaly acknowledged as art. This can be readily said about the work of many classical artists, but cannot be said about the work of most contemporary ones whose "art" is a matter of interpretation and hence of dubious cultural value.
Ps. I invite you to view http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~lofty/pujol.htm and
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=104743497349149409
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-12 20:32:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*slaps forehead*
Submitted by bleuDayblue (user info) at 2003-07-12 11:18:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
id,
I think BenStiller was talking to the author of the post.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-12 11:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck off, kevin the canadian. if you had any clue, and read the previous posts, youd note that i refrained from using the misnomer "american" for a long time, but succumbed to using for sheer simplicity. i know that "american" is term that encompasses canada the US and mexico, so, again, FUCK OFF. your opinion is not required.
Submitted by Ben Stiller at 2003-07-12 09:41:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Speak for yourself. Who the fuck are 'we' ? I certainly hope the rest of the United States of America aren't as fucking ignorant as you are.
KEVIN the CANADIAN
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-11 13:09:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
interesting that you should use a pre-1960 edition of a dictionary, there, yidele. and also quite apt as that also seems to be where you have developed your ideas of culture from.
you see, the english language has evolved quite a bit since then, due to many factors, the internet not least among them. and our language and our use of it has also changed quite a bit since JFK was still president.
"As regards the printing press, you still haven't adressed the basic issue - it is the work of art/literature that is an example of culture - which means that "Harry Potter & the Didjerdoo blowers of Perth" is a part of culture as A specific work, not as A specific printed copy of a work. This really is elementary, mass producing copies of a work of art does not create new masterpieces but more copies of the one masterpiece. this is why there is only one Mona Lisa, only one Guerrenica & only one of me - a masterpiece - and this is something you cannot say about a BigMac or a can of Coke"
lets take the poor example of a big mac for a second, and your assumption "mass producing copies of a work of art does not create new masterpieces but more copies of the one masterpiece". the gentleman who came up with the big mac, or more precisely, the process of mass producing big macs, and fast-food franchises, came up with a new idea. his idea of having a set procedure that ensured one could buy a hambuger that was identical in new york to the one you bought in los angeles, created a masterpiece. its no mona lisa, ill give you that, bt as a sheer work of money-making ingenuity it is almost un-parallelled throughout human experience. again i refer you to the dictionary for the definition of :masterpiece: "Something superlative of its kind: a masterpiece of political ingenuity.". the big mac, more specifically macdonalds, is something superlative of its kind, it took the humble hamburger restaurant and turned into a multinational culinary juggernaut, taking that particular piece of american capitalist ingenuity and spread it all over the world. i would say that that is a "masterpiece of economical and cultural ingenuity".
you ask for a concise definition of culture from me. well here goes, now you might want to sit down and breathe deeply before this, because i fell it may be a bit of heavy going for you:
culture: the predominating attitudes and behaviour patterns of a particular population, group, or society. that is, what the MAJORITY of a bunch of people from a particular group (ie. united states citizens) think, say, write, read, paint, watch, play, cook, eat, or do. people belong to many groups. for example a chinese immigrant living in the states is both chinese and american at the one time, and if he writes a book about his life in the US it is both a work of US culture and of chinese culture. he draws influence from both these sources. ie. his experiences from growing up in china, and his experiences from living in a new country.
to take your flatulent example, someone letting go of a long, drawn-out fart is obviously not culture - it is a bowel movement waiting to happen (much like your argument). however, if someone was to train themselves to produce particular notes and tunes with their flatulence, and to try and compose music for this, then this becomes culture. if he happens to live in the US, it becomes part of US culture and he'll probably appear on jerry springer (which would be quite fitting)unsavoury, but i didnt bring it up. do you see what im driving at? culture is the result of the expression of human thought, emotion, and effort, no matter how unsavoury. culture encompasses all of the possibilities involved in those three definitions, and can be broken up into different genres: romantic period literature for instance or "beat" writing of the 50s and 60s (kerouac, bukowski, burroughs - all of them american), for another.
"P.s - You might also notice that I qualify my opinions & do not attempt to pass them off as fact"
that is a blatant lie, and as such im not going to address it further.
those lectures youve provided are the first time youve put forward any supporting evidence of any value, ill check them out, not soon - i have enough to read at the moment as it is, but ill read them. the evidence ive put forward (ie a CURRENT dictionary definition) has been simplistic, but that is merely a reflection of the simplicity of this argument from my perspective. again you say im only using a "pet" definition. i am only using this one as i dont have a dictionary to hand (to be perfectly honest - im a little leery of using an internet dictionary, but so confident am i that my argument will hold up, no matter what CURRENT dictionary i use, that i can live with this).
how about we start a new argument, as i feel i am not being challenged in this one at all:
im going to say that breathing is good for us, and you can give an equally laughable argument to the opposite, drawing on the most tenuous of examples, probably involving japanese bowel movements; and we can entertain ourselves for another 5 days of utter tedium.
Y O U R E W R O N G.
have a nice day.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-11 11:43:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"""SOMEONE STOLE MY LIST OF US WAR THINGS"""
That would be "cynically correct", and then he TRIED to pass if off as his own! Can you believe that shit?
"""immature 17 year old at best"""
What now? you lost the argument, and now you're using my jokes on me? QUITE COPYING OTHER PEOPLE SHIT! I said YOU were in HIGH-SCHOOL remember?
"""Howabout you just do us all a favor and choke on your tongue while sleeping"""
Weren't your own words, "when someone uses personal attacks, it's a sign of weakness"? Well not for me, but if YOU believe in that, then..........! LOL!
WOW!
One more time:
That's what I call, totally and completely fucked on all levels.
I'm done with you child.
Go back to school, get educated, then come and talk to daddy.
Peace son.
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2003-07-11 07:55:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What? You say that this has all been a debate about societal influences on culture?
Oh. Well then, nevermind.
Michelle
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2003-07-11 06:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait just a dog-gone minute here! What's all this hullabaloo about nearsighted farmers and homogenized milk being bad for society? I think I even saw someone say that Shakespeare was Japanese?!? What the hell has gotten into you people? Is nothing sacred anymore?
It has even been inferred (providing I skip-scanned all the replies correctly) that if MickGinny and Loren decided to get together and bump uglies, er, um, I mean PROCREATE, they might produce some super-baby that could very well take over the world! These new beings or "McLoren's" would be able to drink most of us under the table and use up the entire world's supply of illegal (but entertaining) drugs. If allowed to flourish, the McLorens could even make the saints wet their pants just by the telling of outrageous stories. In short order the McLorens would defile all the collected art of mankind, expertly using tools like photoshop to insure that every last painting, nay, every last remaining image of former man was desecrated entirely (or maybe just doodled on a bunch - like a mustache and horns, a blacked out tooth or three, oh and definitely nice big eyebrows) .
Well, that's just silly! Who in their right mind would even dream of such a thing? Why on earth are you all arguing about this? We can end all this petty fighting and bickering right now. Am I the only one brave enough to say it out loud? Well, fine! I'm not scared! I'll shout it from the rooftops!
The Culture Club in general and Boy George in particular, SUCKED! SUCKED OUT LOUD!
Now, can't we all just get along?
Michelle
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-11 05:07:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what is it that I hear you saying? that artists are inspired by sources outside their own cultural realm? And how does this change the fact that King Lear as Shakespeare has him, King lear as Kurosawa has him in RAN and Der Yidisher Kenig Lir (The Yiddish King Lear), not to mention the greek prototype) are completely different works of art belonging to decidedly different cultures?
While all three express a common theme, they all do it in their own, cultrally individual ways; As I've said several post ago, the fact that humans share the same basic natural atributes ( that they are male, female,young, old, hungry, sated, horny, sad, angry, vengefull, jelous etc) does not mean that those base atributes of human nature are a part of culture. All people must eliminate bodily wastes - I feel sure you could write a play about that, since your "argument" so far is nought but a long, drawn out & smelly pseudo-intellectual fart - but the fact that the Japanese eliminate their wastes in a crouching position into a hole in the ground does not qualify dropping the kids off at the pool as a form of culture.
Shakespeare's Lear is unmistakeably English - (You'll understand it when you read dramatis personae which lists Lear as a king of England) - Ran is unmistakeably Japanese & Der Yidisher Kenig Lir is jewish - only the basic human underpinning is the same & you can't call that culture, as it is common to all mankind, while making your unfounded claim that a distinct, american culture exists. The premise that culture is universal & at the same time specific is an example of a logical error of equivocation. Either it is universal ( as taking a dump surely is) or Specific ( as Japanese poetry is) but not both. Sorry, but no cigar.
You kep repeating your pet definition and claiming 'factual' status for it, for all that its sweeping generalizations do not point to culture but to the totality of all things human. This is another logical error, one of overhasty generalization. Oh, sure, you can point to the totality of human endevour and with certainty say " within this superset, there is contained a smaller set which can be called culture" but since within this superset there also exist a number of elements which are NOT culture, it is a logical error to claim cultural status for them as you're doing with your "totality" definition. I hereby challenge you to produce a concise definition of culture, one which does not contain plainly non-cultural elements - one of your own if you're capable of formulating it...
As regards the printing press, you still haven't adressed the basic issue - it is the work of art/literature that is an example of culture - which means that "Harry Potter & the Didjerdoo blowers of Perth" is a part of culture as A specific work, not as A specific printed copy of a work. This really is elementary, mass producing copies of a work of art does not create new masterpieces but more copies of the one masterpiece. this is why there is only one Mona Lisa, only one Guerrenica & only one of me - a masterpiece - and this is something you cannot say about a BigMac or a can of Coke.
This argument is not a new one - my suggestion to you is the lecture of following works:
Richard A. Shweder, A Logical Argument for Relativism
From Thinking Through Cultures: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology, 1991
E.D. Hirsch, Jr., The Decline of Literate Knowledge
From Cultural Literacy, 1987
of american writers on this subject. alternately you can "...look in an old dictionary -- say, a pre-1960 Webster's -- and you'll likely find a definition of culture that looks something like this: "1. The cultivation of soil. 2. The raising, improvement, or development of some plant, animal or product" (Friend and Guralnik 1958). This use of the word has its roots in the ancient Latin word cultura, "cultivation" or "tending," and its entrance into the English language had begun by the year 1430 (Oxford English Dictionary). By the time the Webster's definition above was written, another definition had begun to take precedence over the old Latin denotation; culture was coming to mean "the training, development, and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners" (Oxford English Dictionary). The OED traces this definition, which today we associate with the phrase " high culture," back as far as 1805; by the middle of the 20th century, it was fast becoming the word's primary definition."
P.s - You might also notice that I qualify my opinions & do not attempt to pass them off as fact by a familiar acronym - IMO ( In MY Opinion ) - the fact that you attack my opinion as though it were presented as fact, shows that you haven't an honest argument
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-11 02:42:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
no, again it is YOU who are wrong, as i said, your definition is too myopic too encompass something as vast as culture. and i can assure you that many, if not all of the artists you mentioned drew inspiration from the art of other nations, just like the british writers of the romantic period, drew inspriration from writers like goethe and petrarch. also like shakespeare drew inspiration from greek, and roman mythology, and ancient roman writers like ovid. just like writers from the US draw or drew ispiriation from similar sources (ie. lovecraft or poe).
"I might add that Andy Warhol - the american artist prototype - is as unoriginal & repetitive as any other mass producer of consumer goods & IMO not an Artist at all. Copying soup can design, painting with stencils or coloring photographs isn't art. It is at most, a method for producing boring wallpaper. By comparison, I consider american photographers to be consistently the most inventive & original, but alas, photography is not art"
yet another of your OPINIONS which is of little to no worth. im sorry yidele, you cant bring your opinion forward as fact to try and prove your point of view, and thats all that statement: is your opinion, and has no basis in fact, whatsoever. so try again.
"As to the printing press, I am sure you'll realize your error when I point out the simple fact that while literature is a part of culture, printing one or one hundred thousand copies doesn't make it any more a part of culture."
sorry, again, yidele. this is actually YOUR error - your were the one who trumpeted the statement "mass-produced ANYTHING is not culture". it is ill-worded, blanket statements like this that characterise your poor excuse for an argument.
i repeat the same, old definition because it is the DICTIONARY DEFINITION (if i could use bigger capitals i would). it has nothing to do with your or my opinion, it is basic fact - thats the english lexicon. and no amout of ranting or raving about "homogenous culture" or how "culture is carried by people" or your tiny little narrow-minded views of culture is going to change this fact. as to it being my "pet" definition, i already challenged you to go find ANY other dictionary (aside, of course, from crazy yideles, Krazy Dikshunary), and post it. they will all say the same thing:
YOU ARE WRONG, YIDELE
its not like youre even close to being right. this argument is like you arguing that water isnt wet, that the sun isnt hot, that when things go up they never come down. the blatant facts are right there in front of you, and yet you choose to ignore them. no amount of big, fancy words is going to change that. no matter how eloquently you manage to put your argument, there is absolutely no getting around the fact that you are utterly, completely, totally, unreservedly and massively WRONG. deal with it - it probably isnt the first time, and it probably wont be the last, but you are most certainly wrong this time. but, hey you gave it a go, right?
thanks for the argument, it was fun about 6 posts ago.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-11 02:22:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Iddqd, your claim that europe & china, middle east have mostly homogenous cultures is just so much dingo's kidneys.
The most basic element of culture is the spoken word. If after milennia spent living side by side, the europeans haven't invented a common language ( and we haven't) but have drifted linguistically and conceptually apart while living next door to each other( it is a fact that language shapes perception), than what can you really say bout homogoneity?
Cultural influences are diverging with time, not converging. Since most of europe's population migrated over the caucassus from more or less the same area & since most euro language groups ( with the exception of ugro-finn and basque, to some degree welsh) are derived from the same proto language, what accounts for their continuing varied & distinct forms? I'm guessing you've never been to europe or china, but if you have & still claim that Han chinese are the same as Manchurians, then you're deaf AND blind. When Slavs crossed the caucassus into europe, they were a loose federation of tribes which spoke the same proto-language. Today's slavs speak a variety of different slavic languages showing considerable differentiation.
I am indeed glad that you noticed that cultures influence & interpenetrate each other - they do so primarily because of intermarriage which is a result of migration & commerce. In this fashion, MicGinny is a mixture of 'lace curtain Irish ' and Italian, which mixed parentage & ubringing gives him his hybrid vigour & unique vocabulary. With a base population of MickGinny's and say, Loren's we could begin to create a new culture, given susbtantial base population, isolation & time, time, time. To continue the organic analogy - all growing things need time to grow, and Culture is surely organic.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-11 01:36:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wrong, iddqd. Why are you wrong? because art is always produced in the context decided by the basic rules i mentioned.
No matter who the artist is, he is always of a specific ethnicity & upbringing, speaking a specific language. The expression of ideas through art is the result of his /hers inner mental landscape, and the inner landscape is inevitably formed by the culture within which the artists grew up. Consequently the Futch masters are dutch, Gaugain, Monet or Tolouse-latrec are french and Picasso is Spanish. It is not surprising when we hear of italian reneisance, the dutch school or french impressionism - these terms are universaly accepted descriptors of style which is another way of asserting the influence a particular ethnic culture has on art produced.
I might add that Andy Warhol - the american artist prototype - is as unoriginal & repetitive as any other mass producer of consumer goods & IMO not an Artist at all. Copying soup can design, painting with stencils or coloring photographs isn't art. It is at most, a method for producing boring wallpaper. By comparison, I consider american photographers to be consistently the most inventive & original, but alas, photography is not art ( this at least I am told by photographers)
As to the printing press, I am sure you'll realize your error when I point out the simple fact that while literature is a part of culture, printing one or one hundred thousand copies doesn't make it any more a part of culture. In fact, a single, hand wrtitten copy would be as much a part of culture. What makes literature a part of culture is the concept, the ideas conveyed, and they gain nothing in endless repetition ( similarly to your argument, BTW) - While your pet example, "harry potter & the assmasters of Perth" may belong to the realm of culture by the fact of being literature, It is the single idea of it that belongs. After all, it is just One book, no matter how many copies you print. This is why mass production does nothing for culture; furthermore, as lame as Harry potter is, it was written & composed by a human with a specific audience in mind, utilizing a whole pallet of cultural idioms - motifs evocative of the ethnic, historical & linguistic background of H. Rowling. Can you say the same thing about the BigMac? I think not
I am sure that you can repeat your pet definition of culture yet again & I am just as sure now as ever that it is deeply flawed. Repetition does not legislate truth, no matter what Goring said & it is you who have failed - to understand that basic fact.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-11 00:19:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
let me also add that i understand your carping about "homogenous" culture, however it too, is incorrect. china, and the middle east in particular, have what you could say is a largely homogenous culture. this is why their particular cultures havent really progressed that much. in europe, no culture is homogenous, there are so many nations, all sharing ideas and technologies that their culture were able to grow and flourish under influences from the middle east, and africa, as well as their own indiginous cultures. and even though they dont all mesh together perfectly, the mere geographical proximity means that they all had and still have influences upon each other.
this too is true for the US. the proximity of so many cultures coming to such proximity - native american, european, chinese, african, latino, inuit, pacific islander etc, meant that these cultures influenced each other, some, more than others, but all can be shown to have influenced in some way. the examples of art, literature, music, food etc. could not have come from anywhere else, as there is as much racial diversity anywhere else in the world. sure they may not be all group-hugging, whilst chanting "we are the world", but the mere fact of their geographical proximity has created not only a distinct culture, but the most dominant culture on the planet.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-10 22:35:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Reading Yidele and ID is like tennis.
I am loving this, Queen, you have done a great job with this post!!!
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-10 22:27:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wrong AGAIN, yidele. your "definition" tries to put something as broad as culture into three little boxes and im afraid it doesnt just fit.
im not surprised that you only adressed one sentence from my previous post, a sentence which was purely sarcastic, i hasten to add. you did this, because you are completely unable to refute what i have said - which, by the way has gone beyond my opinion into the realm of concrete fact.
your three little requisites dont play, yidele. why? because they only constitute a part of what culture is. Art (visual art ie. paintings), im sure you can agree, is culture? i think i can assume that (because the only examples of culture you seem to have given so far is lawn maintenance and japanse bowel movements). art alone transcends all three of your requisites.
your three definitions can, and often are influences upon artists, but by no means are they bound by your myopic views. this alone negates your entire "defintion".
in an earlier rant you said "mass produced anything isnt culture". well, sorry yidele, wrong again, but thanks for playing. for this sweeping statement to hold true, no literature since the advent of the printing press is worth anything. and ive gotta say that thered be quite a few people out there that would disagee with you on that score.
let give you the defintion of culture YET AGAIN. youll note that time does not play a part in it anywhere, because time is irrelevant, what matters is human expession.
"forgive me for going back to the dictionary, but this argument, or lack thereof in your case, really is as simple as this. this is what the word "culture" means: the predominating attitudes and behaviour that characterise the functioning of a group or organisation. do you really need for me to spell this out to you AGAIN? here we go: the predominating attitudes and behaviour, that is what the majority of people listen to, eat, read, watch or do. the foods, art, literature etc that ORIGINATED (which means: came from) in the US are its culture. thats it. its that simple. theres no "culture police" that cruise around saying who has culture, and who doesnt, when someone from a particular population, community or group, which includes, but is not limited to, ethnicity or religion writes something down, paints something, sings, cooks, this is CULTURE. no matter where it originates from. you failed. give up."
let me reiterate: you failed. give up.
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-10 20:11:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*SIGH*
You know, I really dont care anymore. As far as Im concerned youre wrong, and the fact that all you offer is personal attacks shows that you are most likely an immature 17 year old at best. Howabout you just do us all a favor and choke on your tongue while sleeping.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-07-10 18:58:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HEY
SOMEONE STOLE MY LIST OF US WAR THINGS
FakeBerz FakeBerz FakeBerz, are you actually another person on this forum or just a new user?
I was gonna post something sensical but nevermind.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:38:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's what I call, totally and completely fucked on all levels.
I'm done with you child.
Go back to school, get educated, then come and talk to daddy.
Peace son.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:34:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
""""the book I got all of my info is the McKay European History book from 2001""""
And I quote, "ALL OF MY INFO"
Yous a dumb motha fucka.
I CAN refute your idealogy, that we have been in every war, (NOW IT'S BESIDES WW1 and 2, CAUSE I PROVED YA YOUNG DUMB ASS WRONG ON THAT SHIT), for economic reasons. Plain and simple, there's a reason for every war that has ever been faught on this planet. Whether it be, political, economic, just pissed, whatever. My argument, was that it was un-true to state that EVERY war EVER faught by the US, was because of economic reasons.
Don't be so god damned stupid. Please.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:28:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
""It was actually a plan to unite Japan, Mexico, and Gernamy ONLY if we entered the war""
My god, this is what i'm talking about when I say absolutely stupid: First off, you didn't even mention the letter as to why we got into the war, then you come up with this made-up bullshit. Now here's where you really fuck yourself, A PLAN TO UNITE "JAPAN, MEXICO, AND GEMANY" HEY FUCKER- WHEN WAS JAPAN EVER INVOLVED IN WW1???????????? HMMMMMM PLEASE TELL ME IN WHAT PART OF THE LETTER WAS JAPAN EVEN MENTIONED!!!
SEE WHAT I MEAN? TIME FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL!
I'm now convinced this person is STILL in high-school, isn't that right! Or are you just going to keep lying?
"""What really made us mad was when Germany declared there submarine warfare limits broader"""
BUT, good old woodrow STILL didn't commit to war, it only happened AFTER the lusitania was sunk, carring hundreds of AMERICAN passengers! HE EVEN SAID THIS SHIT IN HIS MEMOIRS!!! SOMETHING I HAD TO STUDY IN COLLEGE!!
Do I need to go further?
""""You missed the arguement. My point was that we left Europe smoldering, something you fail to acknowledge""""
Not "WE", YOU MISSED THE POINT IDIOT SAVANT! The world as a collective body left europe, we weren't a power like we are now, we didn't have the respect or authority to "re-build" europe. It was left to the UN, who as usual didn't do shit, passed about a hundred resolutions, and then failed to back them. Now THAT DIRECTLY led to the rise of hitler, the UN left him and germany un-checked. This wasn;t supposed to happen.
BTW- when I say UN I mean a United Collective body of nations, like when we met at the geneva convention, it was a united body, making decisions to keep the world safe of the horrors of war. Hitler was left unchecked, by this body, and was allowed to re-build his shit. Common think!
""""encouraged even, Hitler's government""""
Because he managed to re-build a failed and doomed country, everyone praised him for that, BUT, inbeknowst to them he was building an army and planing.
GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT IDIOT!
And for you to actually believe the shit you say, you MUST have been lied to.
Note: There are quite a few who don't like me, and don't agree with ANYTHING I say, BUT, do you see them in here supporting you? No. There's a reason.
Get educated, this is embarrassing.
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:16:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know, if you had posted that like ,I dunno, 10 minutes earlier, you mightve sounded intelligent. I posted it off www.theboywhocriediraq.com, and have never said that I got that from a book. The stuff on WWI and WWII though, I did.
So fuck off if you arent going to respond with anything other than personal attacks.
And those refutations still ignore my point that the wars were fought for political and economic reasons. You never refuted that. CatsCradle's post didnt either.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:10:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
AHAHAHAHA!!!
Just like I said, This is from SOMEONE else who is responding to the same "book" you got "YOUR" shit from:
Submitted by catscradle (user info) at 2003-06-12 13:58:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
<PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed
PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain
>
American rule was a lot better than Spanish rule - US improvements to the Phillipines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico made those areas a lot better than the heaps of shit they were under Spanish colonial rule. How come the Americans grabbing the Phillipines back from the Japanese in World War 2 isn't mentioned? Oh that's right, it must have been because we wanted all the oil in the Phillipines.
<PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone >
The people of Panama wanted to be independent of Columbia - all the US did was institute some good old fashioned Gun Boat diplomacy. This is condemned as if it is something novel and unheard of - matter of fact, it isn't, and other countries would have done the same thing if only they had the ability.
<JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki >
Oh, it's not as if the United States was at war with Japan or anything - it's not as if the US would have lost hundreds of thousands of lives in an invasion of Nippon. If you're going to mention World War 2 atrocities committed by allies, at least mention Dresden - if you don't, you make yourself (or whoever made this list) look like a fool.
<KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded >
Who invaded whom? Notice, North Koreans were on the verge of overrunning South Korea until Inchon landing. No, nuclear weapons were not a plausible threat during the Korean War, in fact, Truman fired popular general Douglas McArthur because of strategy disagreements. After all, McArthur espou sed, "No war except total war", a policy which Truman was staunchly against.
<GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years
>
Ah.. not like the Iraqis invaded Kuwait or anything.
<IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day >
Sure - not like they were killing their own people or anything heinous like that.
<SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes >
Yeah, it's all the fault of those fucking Kosovars! The lying American media has portrayed them as being victims of a systematic genocide! What a hoax!
<AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands >
Good point, the Taliban was up for the Oppressive Regime of the Year award, and Al-Quaeda certainly didn't have a hand in numerous terrorist activites around the globe. That, and it's shitty how Afghani men and women can do things that only capitalist devils do, like eat and go to movie theaters.
<IRAQ, 2002/3: ... "" >
*Loud sigh*
Sure, the US acts to give itself a better handle in the world - what else is it supposed to do? The main reason people condemn American 'imperialism' is because frankly, their country is not capable of doing the same thing. Just look at the first and second age of imperialism - France, Sweden, Russia, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Britain, and Japan have historically been all about imperialism - but now that they don't have the muscle to do it - they don't. We could pull up huge lists of atrocities committed by Western Europe through the course of history - but it wouldn't matter any more than this list does.
I don't agree with everything this person said, BUT, it just proves to you and I that one, You lied about finding this in a book, you copy and pasted it here. (and don't tell me, "well then how would I know where it came from, cause this is the Internet, and shit like that can easily be found). two, it shows how easy it is to refute this utter bullshit! well not utter, but it's so biased and full of half truths, that you have to wonder what type of fucking myopic fuck would believe it. 3, it also shows that you can't make your own opinions and must reference another ideas! Plain and simple, you aren't on the same "level" as I. Hey try this, take in ALL the facts, make observations, then from those observations and facts, make an assertion, THAT WAY you wont look stupid. It's only logic, something you seem to have a hard time trying to grasp.
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:07:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The list of the wars was not from a book nor did I claim them to be so.
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-10 16:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Only the weak result to personal attacks, by the way, let me remove them and dissect your post.
""""We entered the war because of the lusitania, and because we received (made up by britain or not), a letter confirming the germans asking the mexicans to invade the US. ONLY after that we entered! Woodrow Wilson STILL after this shit didn't want to enter a war, but was persuaded by the people over outrage of the sinking of the ship, and the letter.""""
-It was actually a plan to unite Japan, Mexico, and Gernamy ONLY if we entered the war. Not that they were going to do it regardless.
-What really made us mad was when Germany declared there submarine warfare limits broader than they used to be. We couldnt sail out merchant ships (economic motivation) so we got pissed and attacked.
""""We were there for only a year, well a little over but the impact of our meger 3 million strong force was only felt for one year! so you mean to tell me that in one year WE DESTROYED EUROPE!!!!! Remember? The [war] was RAGED for 3 1/2 years before we entered! In that time more people died, more weapons were used, and of course, MORE SHIT GOT FUCKED UP! It's simple logic.""""
You missed the arguement. My point was that we left Europe smoldering, something you fail to acknowledge.
""""WE WERENT THE MOST POWERFUL NATION YET!!!!! THE BRITISH WERE!!!! We were barely even represented at the conference! The British and french imposed the economic sanctions!""""
I never said they didnt impose the restrictions. We sat bak idly and watched them do it though. And about us not having much representation, do you fail to see that we held the conference? I think you do.
Here is the last arguement you make:
""""Who lied to you? Any educated person would laugh in your face! We are DIRECTLY responsible (with the brits) for freeing the remaining jews. Hitler came to power, and wasn't stopped because the UN didn't have the power or will to start another war.""""
For someone claiming to be so intelligent, the UN was formed after, not before, WWII. But besides that, this argument has no response to the fact that the rest of the world allowed, encouraged even, Hitler's government. We did it at the olympic games. And no one lied to me. Thats the question you should be asking yourself.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 15:58:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I pity the ignorant
I can't converse with you, you're unbelievably stupid. The references from the "wars" LOL! have been stated on here many of times, in fact they were used twice in a thread I started not too long ago. Click on user info, then go to us peace plan. Please don't try and pass if off like you scanned it into your computer, or typed it out, HENCE- that is why I said "good copy and paste job", so not only are you a liar, a fool, but now are also a fraud. ONLY some of the reasons I wont converse with you anymore, "We indirectly killed 6 million jews", go back to school, idiot savant.
BTW- every reference from the "book" AHAHA that you used I can debate. Like I said, they are HALF truths, and bias opinions; it's fairly obvious SINCE THEY NEVER EVEN STATED THE TWO BIGGEST WARS EVER!
Note: I know that we were selling arms to the french and british. note: did I ever disagree?
Note: We had representation, as well as EVERY OTHER CONTRIBUTING NATION! BUT, where you fucked yourself is when you stated, "that we were the most powerfull nation at the time" IDIOT! Don't you know anything about history; the brits had been and were the most powerful nation in the world.
Note: WW1 Could have ended without our participation, maybe 5 years later, with untold millions more dead, and europe being flatened by shells and bombs! You ignorant fuck!
Note: Your dumbshit ass thought we were indirectly the cause for ww2 and hitler, your stupid ass thought WE (AMERICA) destroyed europe in WW1. I mean jesus christ, do you read the shit you write?
CC- Quit lying, get educated and then MAYBE you can come and talk to daddy again, but until then........
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-10 15:42:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fake Berz, quit rambling.
Once again, even if I do accept your examples of WWI and WWII, lets put the focus on ALL THE OTHER WARS. Okay? Please, I dare you, refute those.
And actually, the book I got all of my info is the McKay European History book from 2001. Its college textbook. Maybe its wrong, but blame my education, not me.
NOTE: WE WERE SELLING ARMS TO BRITAIN AND FRANCE.
NOTE: WE STILL HAD REPRESENTATION (ALOT) IN THE TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SO WE STILL HAD POWER.
NOTE: WWI COULDVE ENDED WITHOUT OUR PARTICIPATION.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-10 14:47:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Interesting how you can reduce the 3 basic qualifiers to just one, iddqd. What you have there is not an argument with me but with your selective reading of what I wrote. I gave 3 criteria - not one - and genealogy can partly account for just one. I've given you two fairly concise definitions in as many posts:
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=105701848297222018#89306
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=105701848297222018#90050
, but since you see just genealogy, let's dissect that.
Never in all the world will you, a non-abo, be an aboriginal artist or a contributor to the native, aboriginal culture of australia. You can pout & whine all you want, but if you're not born or raised a native, a native you cannot become. The basic atribute of culture is the fact that it belongs to a specific group of people sharing the same history, language & ethnicity. Every culture in human history is a product of a specific gropup of people bearing a specific cultural identity. Whenever the term culture is broadened to account for more than one such group, this identity is lost.
While no large, completely homogenous societies exist, the degree to which they are homogenous determines how defined their culture is. Thus, for example, the Japanese have a very distinct culture stretching back for millenia BECAUSE they were isolated from external influences & are fairly ethnicly homogenous as a people. By comparison, it is difficult to speak of chinese culture without qualifying it by mentioning a specific ethnicity or region as there are many variations, many ethnicities & many dialects as a result of periodic invasions. This is why we speak of Tibetan, Manchurian or Han culture - when we speak of chinese culture, we are refering to a stereotype which does not, in fact exist.
The same can be said for the many various cultures found in the US of A. I've already shown you that there are groups of people, ethnicities, which exist in america that are almost completely alien to each other. I will amplify this somewhat - The United States of America is a union of states each of which has territory & population sufficient to be an independant country. Since, as I've shown earlier http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=105701848297222018#88256
culture does not respect national borders, the whole idea of identifying culture with an 18th century idea of a nation-state is pure fluff, unless like the Japanese your nation state is a ethnically homogenous entity AND the US definitely ISN'T one. You can't lump in a dozen eurpean nations representing at least four different language groups and at least three competing religions, add asians, africans, polynesians & native americans, stirr for 200 years and expect anything refined, distinct to come out - no matter what kind of a melting pot you've got.
Cultures, even according to your tendentious & overly general definition, are a result of natural growth. Natural growth happens over time - time which neither the US nor Australia have had. 200 years isn't history - 200 years is an eyeblink on the cultural time scale. Allow me to illustrate:
An American tourist is visiting an english country estate & is all agog over the lovely, lush & soft green lawn. He asks the owner, the right Hon. Something or Other:
Tourist : How do you keep your lawn so healthy? I keep pouring chemicals & pesticides onto mine, but it's nothing like this!
Hon. S.O: It's pretty simple, really, just weed, seed & roll.
Tourist : W tried that, but it's still patchy & uneven.
Hon. S.O: Is that so? Give it another 400 years - it's sure to do better.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 12:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
shacking=shaking- it's all the same. I was in disbelief that someone could be so inept.
Like I said, I pity the ignorant.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 12:48:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I pity the ignorant.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-10 12:45:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
""""In fact, it was only after the US noticed that the arms sales would go down if the war stopped that we "intervened""""
WHAT FUCKING HISTORY CLASS DID YOU TAKE!!! The liberal history for morons!
Please, this is what someone would LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE, START MAKING YOUR OWN ASSESMENTS!! QUITE FOLLOWING OTHERS!!
We entered the war because of the lusitania, and because we received (made up by britain or not), a letter confirming the germans asking the mexicans to invade the US. ONLY after that we entered! Woodrow Wilson STILL after this shit didn't want to enter a war, but was persuaded by the people over outrage of the sinking of the ship, and the letter. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
"""But the US, after destroying a large chunck of Europe, left before fixing it, once again, per usual"""
WHAT? ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? We were there for only a year, well a little over but the impact of our meger 3 million strong force was only felt for one year! so you mean to tell me that in one year WE DESTROYED EUROPE!!!!! HOLY SHIT YOUR DUMB!! THEY not US destroyed it themselves. Remember? The was RAGED for 3 1/2 years before we entered! In that time more people died, more weapons were used, and of course, MORE SHIT GOT FUCKED UP! It's simple logic, something you grossly lack.
""""but the reign of Hitler was not. He came to power specifically because the depression that occurred in Germany. WHY DID IT OCCUR? Because WE as the MOST POWERFUL NATION allowed unfair economic restrictions to be placed on Germany""""
ALRIGHT I'M ALMOST DONE CONVERSING WITH THIS IDIOT! WE WEREN'T THE MOST POWERFUL NATION YET!!!!! THE BRITISH WERE!!!! HOW FUCKING STUPID CAN YOU BE!! AND YOU "STUDIED" HISTORY!!! LIAR! We were BARELY even represented at the conference! The British and french imposed the economic sanctions!
I'M ASTONISHED AT THE STUPIDITY: ""WE ARE INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF 6 MILLION JEWS""
Who taught you this? Who lied to you? Any educated person would laugh in your face! We are DIRECTLY responsible (with the brits) for freeing the remaining jews. Hitler came to power, and wasn't stopped because the UN didn't have the power or will to start another war.
Shacking my head. Think son, think.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-10 12:41:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
so all culture is, is geneology, according to you? so thought and emotion, and the expression of these mean absolutely nothing at all?
the reason i "cling" to a dictionary defintion, is because it really doesnt get any more simple than a dictionary definition and i contiued to use it in the vain hope that you would read it and be able to understand its fairly simple defintion.
as for common ethnicity the us has a large white population, their ethnicity originally derived from western europe (england, ireland, france, germany).and granted that this is changing but it still remains largely true.
no common history? thats pure fiction and you know it. from colonisation, to the war of independence, to the civil war, to martin luther king, to today, the us has a rich history, shared by the vast majority of its population.
"Since culture is always the product of a particular ethnicity and/or religious entity/language group" where did you get this definition yidele? or did you just make it up? you know ,id really like a copy of "crazy yideles' krazy dictionary", that way i could just use what ever words i wanted in essays and not have to worry.
let me contrast your misguided OPINION with fact, for a moment, with again (bear with me) the dictionary definition
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
do you see in the definition the words "particular ethnicity"? i dont. at all. all i see are the words community, population, group, organization, all of which i would define the US as having. i see predominating attitudes, i see socially transmitted behaviour patterns. NOWHERE do i see your totally vague and ridiculous "culture is carried by people" diatribe. your assertion that the US is not culturally homogenous is irrelevant, no culture in the world is either, and nor have there been for a long time. theres yet another assumption we can throw out, yidele.
forgive me for going back to the dictionary, but this argument, or lack thereof in your case, really is as simple as this. this is what the word "culture" means: the predominating attitudes and behaviour that characterise the functioning of a group or organisation. do you really need for me to spell this out to you AGAIN? here we go: the predominating attitudes and behaviour, that is what the majority of people listen to, eat, read, watch or do. the foods, art, literature etc that ORIGINATED (which means: came from) in the US are its culture. thats it. its that simple. theres no "culture police" that cruise around saying who has culture, and who doesnt, when someone from a particular population, community or group, which includes, but is not limited to, ethnicity or religion writes something down, paints something, sings, cooks, this is CULTURE. no matter where it originates from. you failed. give up.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-10 11:02:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So, in the end, you really have no argument, do you? When chalenged to think,you stick your head up your ass and declare that a dictionary definition determines what reality is. I won't be the first to tell you this, but dictionaries can be as full of shit as you've proven yourself to be with your claim of this nebulous 'totality'. A dictionary is no substitute for a mind and since You completely ignore the basic reequirements that a culture must have to qualify as one, to wit:
1) common ethnicity
2) common history
3) common language
(the US fails on 2 out of 3 here)
, I am beginnig to believe that the reason why you cling to www.dictionary.comn nebulous definition is that you simply can't think on your own. This is of course perfectly ok since the world needs marketing executives, pre-sales folks and ditch diggers as much or more than it needs thinkers.
Just so you'll remember:
The United States of America is not ethnicaly, religiously or culturally homogenous.I have given you numerous examples of this. Since culture is always the product of a particular ethnicity and/or religious entity/language group, there is no such single thing as an american culture, just as there is no such single thing as an american ethnicity, american religion or american language. Now put that in your didjerdoo and smoke it.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-10 04:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
right, fuck you yidele.
taking your example of india. the language wasnt the only thing that the british left behind, they changed the country entirely, for another example, india play cricket - its their national sport, they idolise their cricket players, there are FAR more cricket players in india than england and yet many would say, quite rightly, that cricket is an ENGLISH pasttime.
dont ever fucking condescend to me, ever. your "informed opinion" is utter, utter bullshit. your opinion is just that, opinion. all i have done is merely relay fact. i provided a DICTIONARY example (it really doesnt get any more basic than that), yet that wasnt good enough, i challenged you to go find any other dictionary and read it - and i still havent heard back from you about that. i provided references to many different SCHOLARS regarding the domination of US culture. and all you have had in return is some vague comment how "culture is carried by people"; which you havent fully explained, in fact i think I came closer to explaining your supposition than you did.
your argument has sucked from the start, you "laugh" when you hear terms like cultural imperialism. at no stage did i say i subscribed to this theory,(yet another incorrect assumption on your behalf) all i said was that of the many people discussing the pros and cons, ALL of them took it for granted that the US has a distinct culture.
your points and examples have become more and more obscure and extreme as this argument has progressed.
wake up to yourself, yidele, and i suggest YOU go and read a bit more, because you have in no way whatsoever refuted anything i have had to say at any time.
ive tried several times to resolve this peacefully, and offered to give you the last word, and what do you do? throw it in my face and patronise me. so fuck you yidele, provide me with some answers, instead of lamely trying to pick holes in my argument. what do you define DEFINE D.E.F.I.N.E. as culture; all youve said is what isnt culture - and youve been wrong. tell me why american food, art, literature, music, sport and poetry (that is, why these things, that have definite outside influences, but their own DISTINCT national flavour) isnt considered culture.
then try and tell me why the US' culture doesnt dominate the world.
because you have completely failed to address these things at any time during your rants.
and i take back my apology for calling you a moron, because you are most evidently, a moron.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2003-07-10 03:21:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
iddqd: While I do indeed think that the Brits, like most ethnically homogenous societies have developed a culture, it is folly to identify that culture with the empire. SINCE culture is carried by specific people, members of a specific ethnic group, the only way that empires might encourage the spread of culture is by encouraging mass emigration. In this way, various european cultures were seeded in the new world, but none was such abundance that a single culture would be prevalent & absorb the others. Take a derive in pensylvania dutch country, visit the Amish & Memnonites & then tell me about an American monoculture - ;). While the brit empire spanned the globe, the british culture did not, or rather it was limited to the british who spanned the globe. India is an interesting example - despite near 400 years of continous british presence in india, the country has its own culture ( or rather a mix of cultures and languages). The Hindu did not become a protestant, he did not relinquish his religion,history, food, tradition, art - btitish influence has pretty much been relegated to an official language; India has its own cultures which were too populous to be wiped out by british rule or diluted by crossbreeding.
I laugh when I hear terms like "american cultural imperialism" because yet again the brainless have saddled their fears with a battery of idioms they do not understand. Oh, sure, there are alot of people who'll buy any half-cocked neologism because it puts a name to something they fear, but I treat them on par with the folks who keep on about alien abductions & anal probing. Good examples of Imperialist policies which actually lead to spread of culture were the empires of Alexander of Macedon and the Roman empire. In both cases, the conquerors did at least three things to spread their culture to a given area:
1) encouraged intermarriage/married the daughters of the conquered nobility/elites to their own generals
2) encouraged wholsale migration by granting estates to their veteran troops & settling them there
3) established their religious cult on par or superior to the native cults.
The US is doing no such thing - what you are holding up as examples of "american culture" are merely products of american industry. You don't see americans emigrating en masse to all corners of the globe, establishing religious cult centers or intermarrying with the local population - and since the only way to join a culture is to be brought up in it, what you have is an example of successfull trade policies, not the spread of culture. Ask one of those Kobe Bryant jersey wearing arabs if he shares ANY of the american cultural values & likely he'll set you on fire as well; He is no more an american than Al Jolson was black when he put on blackface & sang "Mammy".
I am not going to agree to disagree, as that would raise your argument to the level of my informed opinion; My suggestion to you is that you read a bit more & listen to talking heads a bit less, in time you can develop your own opinion without regurgitating stale propaganda.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-07-09 22:11:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you claim that the US is too racially diverse to have its own culture is AGAIN, ridiculous.
is the UK an old enough society to meet youR "old boys club" of culture? let me assume that it is. (though im beginning to believe that the only country that qualifies in your book is poland).
the english have had the MOST diverse influences of any nation (look at the language). you may have heard of a small, but largely successful enterprise, called the british empire. this empire spanned the globe and was part of britain, and conversely, britain became part of these nations. this meant that the english culture dominated the globe, their imperialism also brought with it cultural imperialism.
however, this slowly phased out as the british could no longer keep their empire, due to native populaces becoming more educated, the widespread ideals of democracy, and independence etc. the gap left by the english was filled by the US. this is call US cultural imperialism - check it out theres all kinds of books, theses and articles on this - go to google and type in "US cultural imperialism". some of the papers discuss whether this is in fact true, but all of them take it for granted that the US has a culture and that this culture is evident around the world. (THIS IS NOT EVEN A DISCUSSION POINT FOR THEM. ITS JUST ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE - LIKE WE KNOW THE SUN IS COMING UP TOMORROW)
as for your overly obvious assertion of "if their were no people then thered be no art, etc; well, duh.
i dont disagree with it, but i developed this further to say that people need to express themselves, and when they do, this creates culture. the culture that developed in the US, the largely white, largely christian (although shot through with many black influences) culture, has, and continues to dominate the world, though, admittedly is undergoing change from within, due to the increasing numbers of racial minorities, and their segmentation.
i came to a realisation, yidele: we're not really arguing about the same topic, so hence we are never going to agree: you are arguing that the US doesnt have a culture. while i am arguing that the us culture dominates the globe.
closely linked ideas, granted, but not the same. see, i dont feel that the argument whether the US having a culture or not is relevant. i take it for granted that it is; it is just,as i said before, assumed knowledge. so heres what im willing to propose:
we agree to disagree;
because i for one have REALLY, REALLY, REALLY had enough of this. every time i see "agree or get out!" on the most recently view list i groan. im not ever going to convince you, and youre not ever going to convince me, and all we are doing is finding new ways to say the same things. im sick of it.
and, no it doesnt mean im giving up, if you keep going on, then ill keep going as well, im equally stubborn, and equally prideful of my intelligence. so ill leave it at this, and im going to let you have the last say, unless you happen to bring up something that i cant resist snapping at.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-07-09 20:42:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Thank you, Yidele for:
"I am in complete agreement on this non-issue with Hairpie, who IMO still gives you too much credit by responding to you."
I had that perspective but continued to "discuss" world matters with someone who is convinced that opinion is FACT and visa VERSA, and that their mere typing of words is, ipso facto, factual and verifiable evidence.
I would rather a leap of faith to a leap of logic... Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows?
I have to withdraw before I GO DOWN THE SAME PATH*******************
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-09 18:32:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know, I am right. If I hadnt studied the whole WWI thing for a full year, I wouldn't have said anything. WWI didnt settle anything, true. It was never meant to settle anything. It was an imperialistic strike by Germany, and there was nothing to settle. The French and English hated the Germans, per usual. The fact remains, however, that after the good ol' Ruskies dropped out of the war, the allies realized they couldn't win. No one could, as resouces were running thin. If you think about it, the Germans were doing exactly what we are doing today... but I digress. In fact, it was only after the US noticed that the arms sales would go down if the war stopped that we "intervened".
But the US, after destroying a large chunck of Europe, left before fixing it, once again, per usual. Yes, WWII was inevitable, but the reign of Hitler was not. He came to power specifically because the depression that occurred in Germany. WHY DID IT OCCUR? Because WE as the MOST POWERFUL NATION allowed unfair economic restrictions to be placed on Germany. SO YES. WE ARE INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF 6 MILLION JEWS.
And I blame you, as you seem to blindly support my (yes my) nations blunders.
Submitted by PeopleAreStrange (user info) at 2003-07-09 15:40:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are naive American, aren't you?
This went right over her head.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-09 15:33:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
""""Because all I see is you being retarded by spewing forth your unfounded opinions""""
Isn't that what I've been saying about YOU all along?
Please, once again prove where I lied, or mislead the truth?
I'm still waiting.
As far as your copy and pasted list, it's filled with half-truths, or only mentions a FRACTION of what really happened. Like I said YOU OBVIOUSLY NEVER STUDIED HISTORY! And you keep proving this!
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-07-09 15:28:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"In that sense, we indirectly started the reign of Hitler. So quit fucking quoting WWI, OK? We never needed to get into it"
Alright, I take back what I said, "aren't you intelligent", cause after this shit, there's not a chance in hell you studied history.
Time to get educated-
"WE" Never indirectly started the reign of hitler, europe was left in a state of disarray after WW1. Like a pile of timber ready to burn. WW1 never settled anything, WW2 was inevitable. It wasn't the US who left europe like that anyway, let's not forget we weren't anywhere near a superpower yet. It wasn't our responsibility, (like how it would have been now) to rebuild europe.
Here's where you really fucked up- "So quit fucking quoting WWI, OK? We never needed to get into it"
Oh really! So you think the shit just would have ended if we never entered! That's why britain and france were begging the US to come and help! The chancellor of germany even cited the 3 million US troops that entered in late 1917, as one of the reasons for ending the war! The stalemate would have continued, until one side eventually caved, and who the fuck knows how long that would have been! Not to mention how many countless innocent civilians, and troops would have been sacrificed!
Yous a dumb motha fucka!
Submitted by CynicallyCorrect (user info) at 2003-07-09 15:23:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Would you mind doing that whole fact-proving thing? Because all I see is you bein