Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The USA and "Anglo-Saxon traditions".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Trading posts were established which would be extended leading to sections of the Eastern seaboard becoming colonised.

    It could be contended that the Pilgrim Fathers were nothing but economic migrants looking for a better life. Precisely the reason so many still try and get to the USA.

    The traditional belief they fled religious persecution is not really borne out because they had already left England and were in the Netherlands where they were free to practise their religious beliefs.

    However, their level of poverty combined with the existence of English colonies in the New World may have played a part in their seeking a better future for themselves and their families.
    The Pilgrims and Puritans came not seeking a "better life" which typically is inextricably to economic opportunities. They came in search of a place to practice their religious beliefs without interference. While they were indeed free in Denmark to practice their beliefs an entirely new problem emerged. People started adapting and adopting customs and practices that did not mesh well with their beliefs. So they sought a place where they could practice in peace free of outside interference and influence. By doing so they actually sacrificed the economic stability that they enjoyed in Denmark and traded it for a decided uncertainty.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Trading posts were established which would be extended leading to sections of the Eastern seaboard becoming colonised.

    It could be contended that the Pilgrim Fathers were nothing but economic migrants looking for a better life. Precisely the reason so many still try and get to the USA.

    The traditional belief they fled religious persecution is not really borne out because they had already left England and were in the Netherlands where they were free to practise their religious beliefs.

    However, their level of poverty combined with the existence of English colonies in the New World may have played a part in their seeking a better future for themselves and their families.
    The mindset was quite different though. The "new world" was seen, as largely unclaimed land, ripe for someone to come in and settle on. Compare that to modern day immigrants who are moving into a (known and understood) sovereign country. It creates two very different dynamics and mindsets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    That goes back to why I said that Europeans didn't come over as "immigrants" but as "colonizers"..
    Trading posts were established which would be extended leading to sections of the Eastern seaboard becoming colonised.

    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    (Basically, I think comparing European colonizers to modern day immigrants is very much an apples/oranges comparison)
    It could be contended that the Pilgrim Fathers were nothing but economic migrants looking for a better life. Precisely the reason so many still try and get to the USA.

    The traditional belief they fled religious persecution is not really borne out because they had already left England and were in the Netherlands where they were free to practise their religious beliefs.

    However, their level of poverty combined with the existence of English colonies in the New World may have played a part in their seeking a better future for themselves and their families.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Thank you for your unsolicited for a reason advice.
    Gern geschehen!

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    That tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with firearms.
    That tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with more technologically advanced cultures even when the former had possession of firearms.

    It wasn't uncommon at several points for the Native Americans that the U.S. Cavalry encountered to actually have newer, more modern rifles than what they themselves were equipped with. For instance, at the Battle of Little Big Horn, Custer and his men were armed with single action firearms whereas the Lakota and Cheyenne had a large number of repeating rifles.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    You repeated what has already been noted with regard to the apple.

    The Johnny Appleseed comment and link would quite easily have "stood alone".
    Thank you for your unsolicited for a reason advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    That tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with firearms.
    That goes back to why I said that Europeans didn't come over as "immigrants" but as "colonizers". They didn't come to join a country, they came to expand their own, and the other cultures were in the way.

    (Basically, I think comparing European colonizers to modern day immigrants is very much an apples/oranges comparison)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    What I meant was simple. You said Europeans didn't assimilate to the local culture. Look at the state of those cultures now. They've been decimated.
    That tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with firearms.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by siam View Post

    I agree...but....
    The definition of "immigrant" is general enough that it can be stretched ?....
    im·mi·grant
    noun
    1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
    Nevertheless...since the justification of colonization enterprise was to "bring civilization" to the "Heathens" (non-Christians/Non Europeans)---there was definitively an embedded attitude of arrogant superiority.....which...if I have not misunderstood...you have reproduced in your comment of ...."you just showed the danger of not requiring assimilation"...?...I presume you agree to the superiority of the "European heritage" culture?... and that had they "assimilated" to the Native Indian culture, it would have been a great loss to humanity?

    I can understand. Ofcourse everyone thinks their culture is the best...it is natural. But if everyone thinks this way---how do we manage when 2 (or more) different cultures meet/confront?

    Perhaps by re-imagining the concept of "identity" and the nature of our attachment --Some of our presumptions are that a) cultural identity is static (remains the same over a long period of time), b) cultural identity attachment defines who "we" are. c) cultural identity attachment (tribe) is zero-sum (winner/loser)
    What if we change our assumptions?....a) cultural identity is generational, therefore subject to change b) cultural identity is one of many identity constructs that can define "us" c) cultural identity attachments need not be zero-sum---can harmonize, syncretize or create new cultural identities.

    If we look at our most basic social building block---which is family----we can see some of these dynamics play out. As families come together and change with each generation we have examples of how we might construct presumptions of larger social structures?.....
    What I meant was simple. You said Europeans didn't assimilate to the local culture. Look at the state of those cultures now. They've been decimated.

    Hence you have made the point clear that any culture would find immigrants not assimilating as dangerous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    More reasonable folk might call that elaborating on the point made. Hence the Johnny Appleseed link and reference which you omitted.
    You repeated what has already been noted with regard to the apple.

    The Johnny Appleseed comment and link would quite easily have "stood alone".

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Here, you'd be really stretch what was meant by "influence" to get to there. At this point, it no longer means what it would have meant in the original suggestion. (I.E. Our culture has taken parts of thier culture and integrated it into our own).
    Perhaps so---but what we might understand as "European heritage" developed within the context of Christianity?...it may have taken some presumptions of the Christian paradigm---but its development was also in part a reaction to Christianity? One might also see this in the Protestant movement?....etc?
    Post-colonialism. post-modernism etc are also reactionary constructs and therefore were "influenced" by the previous ideas/movements?

    Perhaps both ways of analyses---seeing the details and seeing the whole---are complementary ways of understanding our world?

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Let's be specific. The settlers were not immigrants they were colonizers. They didn't come to join the country that was here, they sought to make here part of thier country. That's a big and different mindset.

    But if we take what you say at face value, you just showed the danger of not requiring assimilation.
    I agree...but....
    The definition of "immigrant" is general enough that it can be stretched ?....
    im·mi·grant
    noun
    1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
    Nevertheless...since the justification of colonization enterprise was to "bring civilization" to the "Heathens" (non-Christians/Non Europeans)---there was definitively an embedded attitude of arrogant superiority.....which...if I have not misunderstood...you have reproduced in your comment of ...."you just showed the danger of not requiring assimilation"...?...I presume you agree to the superiority of the "European heritage" culture?... and that had they "assimilated" to the Native Indian culture, it would have been a great loss to humanity?

    I can understand. Ofcourse everyone thinks their culture is the best...it is natural. But if everyone thinks this way---how do we manage when 2 (or more) different cultures meet/confront?

    Perhaps by re-imagining the concept of "identity" and the nature of our attachment --Some of our presumptions are that a) cultural identity is static (remains the same over a long period of time), b) cultural identity attachment defines who "we" are. c) cultural identity attachment (tribe) is zero-sum (winner/loser)
    What if we change our assumptions?....a) cultural identity is generational, therefore subject to change b) cultural identity is one of many identity constructs that can define "us" c) cultural identity attachments need not be zero-sum---can harmonize, syncretize or create new cultural identities.

    If we look at our most basic social building block---which is family----we can see some of these dynamics play out. As families come together and change with each generation we have examples of how we might construct presumptions of larger social structures?.....

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    It would appear that you are "mansplaining". siam already knew all that. Hence his/her remark about apples originating in Central Asia.
    More reasonable folk might call that elaborating on the point made. Hence the Johnny Appleseed link and reference which you omitted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Apples are not indigenous to the Americas and were brought over by Europeans a little over 200 years ago.

    It would appear that you are "mansplaining". siam already knew all that. Hence his/her remark about apples originating in Central Asia.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by siam View Post

    interesting....
    Calvados---made in France in 911 ...!!..

    Apparently apples originate from Central Asia---around Kazakhstan. So the signature dish of the U.S. is made from fruit from C.Asia---seems fitting....
    Apples are not indigenous to the Americas and were brought over by Europeans a little over 200 years ago.

    Perhaps you've heard of "Johnny Appleseed," who unlike so many legendary people from that time was a real person.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
142 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
388 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
113 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
365 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X