Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The USA and "Anglo-Saxon traditions".
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostTrading 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.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
That goes back to why I said that Europeans didn't come over as "immigrants" but as "colonizers"..
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post(Basically, I think comparing European colonizers to modern day immigrants is very much an apples/oranges comparison)
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:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThank you for your unsolicited for a reason advice.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThat tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with 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:
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThat tends to happen when less technologically advanced cultures come into contact with firearms.
(Basically, I think comparing European colonizers to modern day immigrants is very much an apples/oranges comparison)
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by siam View Post
I agree...but....
The definition of "immigrant" is general enough that it can be stretched ?....
- a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
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?.....
Hence you have made the point clear that any culture would find immigrants not assimilating as dangerous.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMore reasonable folk might call that elaborating on the point made. Hence the Johnny Appleseed link and reference which you omitted.
The Johnny Appleseed comment and link would quite easily have "stood alone".
Leave a comment:
-
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).
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:
-
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.
The definition of "immigrant" is general enough that it can be stretched ?....
- a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
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?.....
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
-
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....
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 seer, Today, 07:59 AM
|
6 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 10:02 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
|
13 responses
96 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:03 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 05:24 AM
|
37 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 03:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-18-2024, 11:06 AM
|
49 responses
307 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:14 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-18-2024, 07:03 AM
|
19 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 09:58 AM
|
Leave a comment: