|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change".
Convenience is a large part of how languages work, it's not really worth less than substance linguistically speaking. When you want a word to change meaning you basically have to hammer it into people's heads until they accept the new definition, and that's how you get propaganda that is so repetitive. Most of the time the new word only has popularity amidst the group that the change is targeted towards. Atheism is the only english counterexample I can think of, where the propaganda was effective outside of the atheist circle alone.
|
On June 28 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 21:57 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. "American" is really the only good citizen name for the country name being USA. The country name being USA I would chalk up to historical accident (aka, the US founding fathers couldn't think of anything better). Edit: "Estadunidences" is actually used in portuguese and doesn't actually sound the worst. It's too bad because we lose the grouping category "americans", but I'm not sure this grouping category is that useful to begin with given the fundamental differences between nations of the Americas. More relevant categories might be Spanish/Portuguese/English America, South/North/Central America, or w/e. I personally have no need to call myself "american". In a few decades, depending on how things go in the EU, the same thing might start happening there. Could be that new generation start refering people from the EU as "europeans", to the detriment of non-EU european nations. Well, I don't think this is really probable because some measure of nationalism will always live on, but it's a possibility. The entitlement really does seem to boil down to nothing of substance, but rather convenience, superficial appeals, and basically whining that "I don't wanna change".
Convenience and superficial appeals (by this I mean "american" is the most simple and well sounding reduction to "citizen of the USA") are quite important, and if I were american I would quite value this.
Even for a non-american, whatever dubious gains there are behind "citizens of other american nations will be able to call themselves 'american'" are so irrelevant it wouldn't be worth the cost of having a few decades of people fumbling over what to call citizens of the USA.
|
United States43568 Posts
On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc..
If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for.
|
On June 28 2019 21:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 21:52 Gahlo wrote:On June 28 2019 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:46 Nebuchad wrote:
"Etats-Uniens" exists in french but it sounds really weird. This is the same kind of logic that calls for West Asia instead of the Middle East, considering that "the Middle East" is quite eurocentric. I mean, it's certainly true; but I'm not sure it matters as much as some people think it does. I can't speak to the comparison but in the Americas it matters quite a bit. Many people labeled as "illegal immigrants" have ties to the land going back long before the "Americans" (Europeans) that came along relatively recently. It's not a cure all or anything, but the ease with which USians (and Westerners in general) assert ownership over land, space, words, etc... is certainly a critical part of the overall problem. Examples please. You know Texas, California, etc was Mexico right? To be a bit more specific here's an image. + Show Spoiler +
And Spain used to south-Swedish/northern-German, Norway used to be Danish and Normandie was English/Scandinavian, and most importantly in these days; Taiwan was Chinese, Crimea was Russian, and most of Austria was part of The German Confederation. How does your logic work for them?
|
|
|
I think it would be nice if the continents of North and South America were renamed to give them more of a meaning created by the countries themselves instead of the name of their Western discoverer. Have some referendum or something, like a naming contest. It's always felt weird that we've got two wildly different continents with names as close as the Dakotas are to each other, and there's some opportunity to bring lesser-known history to the front with the new name.
|
On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for.
Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies.
On June 28 2019 22:31 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I think it would be nice if the continents of North and South America were renamed to give them more of a meaning created by the countries themselves instead of the name of their Western discoverer. Have some referendum or something, like a naming contest. It's always felt weird that we've got two wildly different continents with names as close as the Dakotas are to each other, and there's some opportunity to bring lesser-known history to the front with the new name.
This is the kind of response I was after. I agree.
|
United States43568 Posts
Big Mac Americans. Hockey Americans. Fiesta Americans. I don’t know any Guatemalan stereotypes though.
|
United States43568 Posts
On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies.
If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner?
Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do.
|
Increase the silliness more. This discussion is, again, dumb. While I am not a fan of the history, it is what it is. Being called American, as a citizen of the US, is prideful and derogatory, depending on who you talk to. However you want to be identified, just like sexual/gender orientation, then so be it. But don't go forcing it unto everyone. It would make you no better than your hatred for the colonizers.
|
On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do.
We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else.
On June 28 2019 22:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Increase the silliness more. This discussion is, again, dumb. While I am not a fan of the history, it is what it is. Being called American, as a citizen of the US, is prideful and derogatory, depending on who you talk to. However you want to be identified, just like sexual/gender orientation, then so be it. But don't go forcing it unto everyone. It would make you no better than your hatred for the colonizers.
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
The way the world seems to work, I expect Williamson to be our Trump and she will turn Texas blue.
|
Isn't this just what everyone predicted would happen when the UK returned Hong Kong to China?
|
On June 28 2019 21:33 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 21:18 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina? Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues. I think it's worth investigating why US citizens feel entitled to the exclusive ownership of the term "Americans" and why those generally excluded, might not want the title. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Kamala seems to be going the Trump route in that she'll just say both things (on healthcare again here) and let people believe which one they want to. What would you propose we call each other/ourselves instead? United Statesians?
That's exactly how we call you. I guess it sounds more natural in spanish, or maybe it's force of habit 
|
United States43568 Posts
On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else.
The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime.
I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us.
The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here.
|
United States43568 Posts
The Chinese told Maggie that it could be given back or it could be taken back and that it was up to her.
Might makes right, and HK doesn’t have a moat the way Formosa does.
If it could have been saved Maggie a was the type who would have tried. The fact that she wouldn’t try it means that the MoD explained to her that it couldn’t be done under any circumstances.
The play would have been to make it autonomous, or give it to Formosa, back in the 40s and let it build its own defence forces and administration. Then China would actually have to invade, rather than simply threaten to invade, and there would have been a resulting quagmire with sufficient costs to all involved that it wouldn’t have been worth it. But because it was nominally British, rather than RoC, no real case could be made against China wanting to rule China.
|
|
|
On June 28 2019 23:11 Mohdoo wrote:
The way the world seems to work, I expect Williamson to be our Trump and she will turn Texas blue.
Williamson came off as a lunatic. The sooner that she gets purged from the race, the better for Democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Mexico_1821.PNG/1024px-Mexico_1821.PNG)
