Tribalism is Ruining Democracy
Why are we so divided? As Americans, and more importantly, as people, we all have a lot more in common than we do different. So why do we split ourselves into opposing tribes and relentlessly bash each other?
"We The People" don’t really seem to like each other very much. We smear those who refuse to agree with us. We claim a Judea-Christian heritage but celebrate intolerance and judgement.
The divisiveness in America stems from one common root: we attribute bad motives to people we disagree with.
Let's start with something basic we should all be able to agree on. None of us, whether Republican, Democrat, or anything else, are trying to ruin America. We all want a beautiful, safe, free country where people are happy. We just have different visions of how to get there.
Yet, when we engage in debate, suddenly we paint each other as the worst thing since Hitler and lose our minds. The latest gun control debate exemplifies my point. On CNN, a survivor from the Parkland school shooting called the NRA “child murderers.” Meanwhile, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesche has blasted the media for “loving mass shootings.”
This isn’t productive conversation, folks, it’s divisive rhetoric. If you’re one of the people who share this stuff, you are part the problem.
You want to know why nothing seems to get done in Washington? Why we can never seem to compromise? It’s not the lobbyists, nor the corruption, nor the laziness, it’s us.
America has been drawn into tribal warfare, where we split ourselves among party lines and build echo chambers around us. When we attribute bad motives to people with ideas different from us, we fall into the trap of seeing each other as an enemy.
Once we decide to view an issue as a war, instead of a conversation, we have already lost. When we convince ourselves that the other side isn’t just different ideas, but evil people trying to destroy our country, we refuse to listen. When we refuse to listen, we cannot make progress. Politicians in turn simply ride and stoke the wave of hate and division rather than put forward real ideas and do real work. They succeed primarily by stoking voters’ fears and appealing to their ugliest us-versus-them instincts.
So maybe let’s stop lying to ourselves. The country isn’t divided because of our politicians, Maybe it’s because of us. It’s our social media rants and shares and comments that celebrate and vilify the other side and stifle reasonable debate. It’s our refusal to behave as rational adults and regression into tribal politics, because it’s convenient for us to remain ignorant.
As long as we continue to behave like we’re at war, we shouldn’t expect solutions to our problems.
If we’re going to make progress as a country, it starts with recognizing one simple truth: we aren’t enemies; we’re neighbors.
I thought the goal is to build a more perfect union for every American, not just those you agree with.Very good question, and very good points; I'd be interested to see how other Americans respond to your question.
Geez Nathanville, just had to toss out a dare, didn't you?
Any response to Faye's questions would most appropriately be philosophical—re. human nature's characteristic of tribalism—rather than political. But, it is a lazy Sunday morning, so here's the path I would take to offer a response. (probably equally lengthy)
I hereby declare that human nature drives our actions. I also declare that the traits of our human nature are uncancelable. They can be changed by mitigation and modification, but they cannot be canceled.
If you don't agree with that, you are wrong. Go sit in the corner.
The most basic instinct of our human nature is survival—to continue to live.
Our first power to that end is strength. Our second is our mind.
From the first two cavemen, our minds learned there is strength, in numbers. More power to survive.
Through the age of civilized man that instinct changed. From the strength of two clubs to the strength of two minds. The survival instinct wasn't canceled, it was simply mitigated by successive layers of societal survival security.
The fight changed from simple survival to how we lived that survival.
That is the point where the power of brute strength became secondary to the power of numbers alone. That is where, because we all now had the security of actual survival, the fight became for the power of ideologies.
Tribalism is so basic and natural in a democracy-based society that I think it is unavoidable. It's our nature.
With that lead-up to an answer to Faye's questions, we are so vehemently tribal today because we have always been vehemently tribal. It simply became a vehemence of ideologies rather than clubs. Instead of destroying enemies with clubs, now we do it with words.
The power of science, (technology and the 'net), has magnified the power of our tribalistic instinct. The ideological battles, (the politics of change), are deeply held by both sides, so the battles will naturally be fierce.
However, that was just an excuse for some Sunday morning musings because stating the obvious is seldom contributory, and I think you and Faye already knew what I said. ;-)
GAI would add one more tidbit to your thoughts, specifically relative to the US.
There is no other country that even comes close to the variety and number of cultures represented in our country. We go to considerable lengths to encourage that to happen, from Indian reservations to neighborhoods of refugees from one area to the "Chinatowns" that exist all over the country. There is virtually no effort to bring people into an "American" culture; instead we intentionally separate people into groups of differing cultures. Other countries are primarily homogenous; nearly every citizen shares the same national culture.
While we pay lip service to these enclaves of differing culture, and even enjoy those differences at times, that old, old tribalism eventually pokes its head up and begins to break down any tolerance we have temporarily shown.
Then toss in the growing divide in ideology, from the tried and proven concepts that built this country into that of "Americans must take care of the world", and the problem is exacerbated. The "new" ideology exists in the cities and urban areas, the old "hard work will get you through" in the rural areas of the country, and they simply do not mix well.Your tidbit is more than a tidbit when my original comment is applied locally, to the USA, instead of generally. It comes to me that it might be a big part of America's "tribal" problems.
Does the multiculturalism you describe affect us more than other nations because of your point, or, is that just an American view because it can probably be argued that other nations have similar 'tribal' enclaves?
My first thought is to agree that your point might be a big part of our 'tribal' problems. Seems logical, seems reasonable, but, a thought about the 'Muslim' No-Go zones in Britain sows some doubt. To be clear, I only point to that thought, I don't speak to it. I'm just 'shooting from the hip.'
We know where the question will end: What are you first, a citizen of a nation, or a hyphenated citizen with the nation second in line? This will lead to challenges that the hyphenation means nothing and isn't a bad thing.
Hell yeah, let's go for it. Valeant seems to have mellowed a bit and Cred says he has put his 'sally forth' arms back on the shelf. Should be a cakewalk. ;-o
GA"Hell yeah, let's go for it. Valeant seems to have mellowed a bit and Cred says he has put his 'sally forth' arms back on the shelf. Should be a cakewalk. ;-o"
True, but I still keep my powder dry for now.....I can see that. You already jumped to the 'culture' question.
You need the 'is it a thing' question first. If it isn't, the last question is mute. (yes, 'moot' is the word, my 'mute' was a tribute to a former poster)
GAI can see that. You already jumped to the 'culture' question.
You need the 'is it a thing' question first. If it isn't, the last question is mute. (yes, 'moot' is the word, my 'mute' was a tribute to a former poster)
GA
--------
???
Whatcha talkin' about Willis?
I will say that a good citizen subordinates his ethnic or previous practices of his or her prior international point of origin ONLY in regards to subscribing to principles of Democracy and in the interests of a common defense. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the patchwork quilt idea as being superior to the "melting pot" one.What I was talking about, first, was the question of whether the point made, (that cultural enclaves promote disharmony), is true, or is it simply a perspective of 'non-others', (as in a natural-born American's view of an immigrated American).
I have the perception that it is true, but I don't have anything more to support that thought than my 'natural-born' American perspective. Hence my reference to Britain. Do other nations have a similar view, or is this just an American thing? If other nations do have this perspective then maybe my thought is supportable, then the next step is the 'culture' question you jumped to.
I really disagree with your 'patchwork' thought, but that's another discussion.
GAI think that the idea of cultural enclaves producing disharmony is just a perspective from the point of view of the non-others.
I don't believe that it is true and like you, I don't have a lot to support that other than my natural born American perspective.
You know, during the late Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee earlier this year, all the members of the British Commonwealth nations sent a representative. They were from everywhere across the globe, and they had nothing in common except their pride for being part of what could be considered British culture.
On the other hand the French are serious about maintaining a culture that France defines as "French", requiring broadcasters to limit English and foreign language programmin, and taking issue with Muslims and their customs within their society. But, that is not America, people come here not to be told what to do by merely a New set of conformists.
There is no American cultural template, like I told Wilderness, it is just a fantasy.I like that "fantasy," I'm going to keep mine.
GA
Where you say “but, a thought about the 'Muslim' No-Go zones in Britain sows some doubt."; I take it that you are unaware that that was ‘fake news’ originally broadcasted by Fox News repeatedly from the 9th Jan 2015, and that on the 18th Jan 2015 Fox News actually made a rare public apology for broadcasting the ‘Fake News’.
Fox News Admits There is No Such Thing as Muslim ‘No-Go-Zones’ in Europe: https://youtu.be/sz1k37TPA8U
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/worl … rance.htmlI am aware that it was not true. My use of the example was to the point that other nations also have cultural enclaves as part of their citizens and I don't know if they have a similar 'assimilation' issue as the ones Wilderness noted.
The thought was a lead-in to the inevitable value question that would follow: Does one think of themselves as a citizen of their nation first, or of their culture? Using the 'Chinatowns' we have in America as the illustration, does an Asian-American have a different perspective than an American-Asian?
GAThe simple answer, with respect to Britain, is no; these days, immigrants into Britain do generally assimilate into British society.
In the aftermath of the 2nd world war Britain had a chronic labour shortage so from 1948 to 1971 Britain imported around half a million migrants from the West Indies, known as the Windrush Generation, because the first of those immigrants came across on the ship HMT Empire Windrush – HMT Empire Windrush was a German passenger liner launched in Germany in 1930, and used during the war as a German troopship, she was taken by the British at the end of the war as a ‘prize of war’.
So historically, from the end of the 2nd world war until the 1980s cultural enclaves in Britain was quite common e.g. immigrants into Britain tended to buy and rent houses in the parts of the cities where housing was cheaper; the more rundown areas.
However, with the rise of the Yuppies in the 1980s all that quickly changed. Yuppies being young middle class white people with good jobs, and income, who instead of being snobbish, and buying more up market houses bought cheap housing in rundown areas and renovated them to live in; pushing up the value of properties in those areas, and beginning the process of integration.
This trend was further expanded upon by the EU (when Britain was still an EU member), the EU funded major projects in Britain to regenerate the poorer sections of inner cities as part of their ‘urban regeneration’ programme.
So therefore, these days, there little separation between the various ethnic groups in Britain; London (population 9 million) being a prime example, the ethnic makeup of Londoners being:-
• White British = 59.79%
• Asian = 18.49%
• Blacks = 13.32%
• Mixed race = 4.96%
• Others = 3.44%
The various ethnic groups in London are well integrated, so much so that these days Londoners in the East end of London even have their own unique dialect known as MLE (Multicultural London English).
Multicultural London English (MLE): https://youtu.be/0KdVoSS_2PM
Another example of the movement towards integration in Britain is the ‘Muslim Council of Britain’, which was founded in 1997 to represent both Sunni and Shia Muslims, and who work closely with the British Government. The Muslim Council of Britain prime vision being to "empowering the Muslim community towards achieving a just, cohesive and successful British society"
Also, where I live, we have a Chinese family living just two doors up from us, and an Indian family at the end of our street, both of whom we are close friends with; and both who consider themselves to be British, and are proud to be British – And that sort of integration in Britain is common.
Where we do have cultural enclaves in Britain which does cause a lot of friction are the Celtic nations, particularly Northern Ireland and Scotland; although even Cornwall, another Celtic nation, who was granted legal protective status as a minority people by the Conservative Government in 2014, and who have their own flag, anthem, culture and language, are beginning to express their voice for independence from English rule; as this short video demonstrates: https://youtu.be/Cmtqn8wANLYInterjecting, before I could ponder the question "does an Asian-American have a different perspective than an American-Asian?" I would like to know what the hell an American is? Also, I think of odd things like Veganism is a culture today.
Wandering a little I agree with the premise you brought up with survival. People in general have a need to belong to a group/tribe. I wonder if there loyalty goes to which one assures survival for a person on their life journey. I think people belong to more than one group/tribe and probably there is dissonance when deciding which to give loyalty to first and perhaps context is needed.
In other words one could also ask does a white man - American have a different perspective than an American - white man? Or, insert any group/tribe.My point wasn't meant to be as complicated as definitions, or as deep as levels of differences. It was simply about our human nature of prioritization. We prioritize what is important to us. It is natural to do so.
If one is making a list, the most important comes first. What we list as most important is a strong indicator of our beliefs and perspectives—in the area involved in the decision of prioritizing.
With that context and relative to the hyphenation issue, does an Italian-American value being Italian more than being American? Does an American-Italian value being American more than being Italian?
My thought is that the order of prioritization does indicate a sense of what is most important to one. I'm not confident enough to say this is true to the point of choosing an Italian perspective over an American one—on important serious questions, (as in unAmerican), but I am confident that such a choice would affect life choices that create the China towns and Little Italys and the aspects of "homogeneous" America that were mentioned.
GAAgreed! I am going to wander a little. I think that is kinda' what I said with; "I wonder if there [correctly 'their'] loyalty goes to which one assures survival for a person on their life journey. I think people belong to more than one group/tribe and probably there is dissonance when deciding which to give loyalty to first and perhaps context is needed." An example is forgoing voting on the last day of it to work overtime because of financial needs such as feeding one's family. In other words opportunity arrived.
With; ". . . but I am confident that such a choice would affect life choices that create the China towns and Little Italys and the aspects of "homogeneous" America that were mentioned." What is "homogeneous" for an American? Are we speaking of eating the same foods, worshiping the same, wearing the same clothes, listening to the same music, speaking the same language all the time even in a private home, and on and on?
As far as language goes my usage of a jargon of English being car stuff may leave some bewildered what I was saying regard a social interaction or setting with a like minded friend. Like she has a nice set of headlights. He can't engage his clutch. Or, s/he has too much air and running lean.
China towns according to history were forced upon them from my understanding. "In the face of a hostile public, and in response to hard times and legal exclusion, Chinese immigrants began to build self-reliant communities that became known, to Chinese and non-Chinese residents alike,as Chinatowns." That is from the Library of Congress link below for an article titled; Building Communities.
I am sure one could see with that two paragraph article being true for any community. Similarly, how many long haired hippie types moved to Oregon to establish a community with their culture? Is that not the same thing? Similarly, what did Oregonians think of that?
Building Communities
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials … mmunities/
And, Hippie Oregon
https://1859oregonmagazine.com/think-or … ie-oregon/
As stated earlier insert any group/tribe for the question regard perspective; _____ - American vs. American - _______. With political science that could be Conservative/Liberal, with political party Republican/Democrat, and for religion Christianity/Atheist/or ??? Or, any what-ever.
That leads to I thought about it on and off yesterday getting stuck on many begin prayers with "Lord Jesus the Christ". To many denominations that means; "Christ is a prophet, priest, and king." Emphasis on king. So, is that un-American? What is the prioritization with that? Or, is an American inclusive of being a Christian while ignore that part about 'king'?
Seems the sticking point is with foreigners with their varied cultures, right? Or, is it only with recent immigrants? The first wave of Chinese immigrants was mid 1800's. So, how many generations is that to today? When does assimilation occur in that time frame?
The first wave of the Irish was 1715 continuing to 1845. The first wave of Italians was 1880. The Spanish were here already in the Southwest. So, who should do the assimilating? Of course the first wave of immigrants that actually established themself first on the east coast were the English, though who came to America first is disputed. Is the original English culture what is to be assimilated to if one considers tradition?
I get the point you are making regard prioritizing nation over what-ever regard patriotism. That is context, right? Seems the demographics of the history of our military may answer that question. I dun'no . . . Yet, there are a lot of what-evers. But, that does not answer what an American is nor what the American culture is that is to be assimilated to.
Like I said just wandering a bit . . . I will ponder more . . .Yep, that was a bit of wandering. Too much work for me. If the Supreme Court couldn't define it—we were all left with the only choice of 'to know it when we saw it'—I'm not going to try.
GAI wander writing free form in my different journals seeking answers to satisfy my curiosity of what is . . . is of this or that. This time I posted it. Oops!! In essence the wandering was not offering a resolute position. It was exploring ideas and/or thoughts from the thread while thinking of my life experience, knowledge both true and untrue that is open to discussion, and beliefs, of which I am exploring why do I believe what I do with as open, objective a mind as I can seeking perhaps a new identity in my position of life now with all its pluses and minuses.
Also, Yes, we all know it when we see it!!!
With the wandering I was guided firstly by:
Geez Nathanville, just had to toss out a dare, didn't you?
Any response to Faye's questions would most appropriately be philosophical—re. human nature's characteristic of tribalism—rather than political. But, it is a lazy Sunday morning, so here's the path I would take to offer a response. (probably equally lengthy)
I hereby declare that human nature drives our actions. I also declare that the traits of our human nature are uncancelable. They can be changed by mitigation and modification, but they cannot be canceled.
If you don't agree with that, you are wrong. Go sit in the corner.
The most basic instinct of our human nature is survival—to continue to live.
Our first power to that end is strength. Our second is our mind.
From the first two cavemen, our minds learned there is strength, in numbers. More power to survive.
Through the age of civilized man that instinct changed. From the strength of two clubs to the strength of two minds. The survival instinct wasn't canceled, it was simply mitigated by successive layers of societal survival security.
The fight changed from simple survival to how we lived that survival.
That is the point where the power of brute strength became secondary to the power of numbers alone. That is where, because we all now had the security of actual survival, the fight became for the power of ideologies.
Tribalism is so basic and natural in a democracy-based society that I think it is unavoidable. It's our nature.
With that lead-up to an answer to Faye's questions, we are so vehemently tribal today because we have always been vehemently tribal. It simply became a vehemence of ideologies rather than clubs. Instead of destroying enemies with clubs, now we do it with words.
The power of science, (technology and the 'net), has magnified the power of our tribalistic instinct. The ideological battles, (the politics of change), are deeply held by both sides, so the battles will naturally be fierce.
However, that was just an excuse for some Sunday morning musings because stating the obvious is seldom contributory, and I think you and Faye already knew what I said. ;-)
GA
Off topic, with the state of our world now when I decide to use a telescope seeking understanding it I fall upon science and the bible seeking the big picture. I did a ways back some poking into the entropy related to politics and sociology. I recently looked into Chaos Theory with the same two. It is related to; "The power of science, (technology and the 'net), has magnified the power of our tribalistic instinct. The ideological battles, (the politics of change), are deeply held by both sides, so the battles will naturally be fierce"
One of several articles linked below states; "People tend to believe information (Delivered in any form) not because it’s factual, not because it’s based on expert opinion, but because it aligns with their existing worldview." In other words, perhaps, life experience and beliefs. I imagine most here know that.
If your interested the article is;
Chaos Theory
Amanda Darrach talks to a political scientist about how nihilism affects the media landscape
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/chaos-theory.php
As a side note have you read George Washington's Farewell Address? I read it a week or so back and it speaks volumes and takes patience to understand it in my view. Talk about doing some wandering. I will need to re-read it a few times probably. And, then read some history and seek sociological history too to get a true understanding.
Oops! I wandered again . . .
Edit: An on topic interesting article I read is: This map shows how the US really has 11 separate 'nations' with entirely different cultures. It published at Business Insider and comes from a book.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11- … tes-2015-7Yep, you sure did, but at least you leave a trail of breadcrumbs so you can find your way home.
Over the years, prodded by forum topics, I have 'wandered a lot of those same paths, (except the Bible one). I ended up suffering from confirmation bias, (your inference).
I don't think I have read Washington's farewell speech. I think I will, and I bet I end up nodding in agreement with its points. Ill let you know.
GAI recommend reading it wholeheartedly. It is a very long read thus the wandering comment. It speaks volumes, though I am somewhat ignorant of the forming government at that time in history and as I said would need to read up on that history of that time as well as the sociological factors. For instance the clash between the Federalist and Jeffersonian parties with their main characters. Also, I learned about that time is when how to interpret the Constitution started.
There is virtually no effort to bring people into an "American" culture; instead we intentionally separate people into groups of differing cultures. Other countries are primarily homogenous; nearly every citizen shares the same national culture.
----------
So I have to ask you, Wilderness, what is an "American Culture"? What culture there is is a polyglot of several different cultural influences from around the globe. The idea of real homogeneity anywhere has about as much credibility as a "perpetual motion machine".Perhaps it is that white picket fence in the suburbs from the 50's. Perhaps it is people pulling together to accomplish something. Perhaps it is appreciation of our nation, our patriotism. Perhaps it is a strong work ethic. Perhaps it is a love of freedom...and the responsibility for self that that brings. Perhaps it is all of these and much more.
What it is NOT is sharia law in the 'burbs (or anywhere else). It is NOT cinco de mayo, celebrating a minor battle of a foreign nation. It is NOT living off of charity and the efforts of others. It is NOT presenting ourselves as part of another nation or continent - not even another culture (although other cultures should remain and should be a minor part of who we are). It is NOT building an enclave of like minded people that live as those in a different country do. It is NOT refusing to learn and use the English language.Tribes are not ruining America, they are necessary to save America.
OMG ---- I am going to borrow your comment --- it is to me riveting, a true depiction that answers the question --- Why we are divided, and why so many Americans are willing to stand fast and defend the America we love, we respect, the America that has been carefully constructed over now hundreds of years.I replied to this comment. I found it prolific. It offered clearly what I value, and what I have come to dislike about America. It offers the America we worked to build over hundreds of years, and now some are willing to tear down to become some form of Nation they feel will serve them better.
"Perhaps it is that white picket fence in the suburbs from the 50's. Perhaps it is people pulling together to accomplish something. Perhaps it is an appreciation of our nation, our patriotism. Perhaps it is a strong work ethic. Perhaps it is a love of freedom...and the responsibility for self that that brings. Perhaps it is all of these and much more.
What it is NOT is sharia law in the 'burbs (or anywhere else). It is NOT cinco de mayo, celebrating a minor battle of a foreign nation. It is NOT living off of charity and the efforts of others. It is NOT presenting ourselves as part of another nation or continent - not even another culture (although other cultures should remain and should be a minor part of who we are). It is NOT building an enclave of like minded people that live as those in a different country do. It is NOT refusing to learn and use the English language."
That 1950's suburb vision is not my idea of American culture but a flawed caricature of an era as one that I would not fondly reminisce over.
The idea of people pulling together to accomplish something is not a stellar American trait in my opinion. Nor, is it unique to the American experience.
People living here and appreciating it, is a given. Otherwise, why stay here?
It is not Sharia Law nor nor interference in secular law by the Evangelical Christian Right.
There is St. Patrick Day, or Octoberfest which is celebrated in the Upper Amrerican Midwest. Being American is idea, not an indivdual or a model that can be personified.
I have my pork chitterlings, collard greens and corn bread as prepared by Mama every New Years Day. I eat this and still I am an American citizen, so it is part of American culture.
People can live as they like as long as they subordinate themselves to American law and commit to defending the nation that they reside in as a new home. People will learn English out of necessity and if they don't, is there any skin from off of your nose?"People can live as they like as long as they subordinate themselves to American law and commit to defending the nation that they reside in as a new home."
Yes they can. And they fight an eternal fight to turn the nation into what they want (legally, ethically, morally and even physically), whether it be Chinatown, a Muslim community, a land of Mexicans celebrating their Mexican achievements or anything else. Which has gotten us to where we are; a land of separate tribes all fighting to control how others live.
"People living here and appreciating it, is a given. Otherwise, why stay here?"
Because it is the "land of milk and honey" compared to where they were, and they are unwilling to pay the price of developing their own land of milk and honey.
"I have my pork chitterlings, collard greens and corn bread as prepared by Mama every New Years Day. "
And I eat tacos, German sausage and potato salad, sweet and sour pork from China, French bread and Swiss cheese. And Pizza (always pizza)
. I love Octoberfest, Christmas (from Europe) and Halloween (again, from Europe). It isn't about these kinds of things, it's about a lifestyle that is foreign to our country, which I think you understand.
"People will learn English out of necessity and if they don't, is there any skin from off of your nose?"
Who do you think pays the translator in court? Who do you think pays the ESL teachers? Who do you think pays the price of someone not following road signs because they can't read them? Who pays for all the extra paperwork, signs, etc. printed in other languages? Who ultimately pays for extra bi-lingual supervisors to make sure instructions are understood? Who pays the price in the long run for communities that band together under a foreign language and then insists their laws trump those of Congress?"Yes they can. And they fight an eternal fight to turn the nation into what they want (legally, ethically, morally and even physically), whether it be Chinatown, a Muslim community, a land of Mexicans celebrating their Mexican achievements or anything else. Which has gotten us to where we are; a land of separate tribes all fighting to control how others live."
Your making a mountain out of a mole hill, this great replacement stuff is just a lot of Huey. What changes have you upset? It is more like separate tribes insisting on living the way they want to. This is a heterogeneous society, it always have been. From the Eskimo tribes in Alaska to the Cubans in Miami. The nation spreads across a continent, can you expect anything less? It is just that the conservatives do not like the new visitors.
It not always about milk and honey, it is about people making their escape from regimes that were hostile to its residents. I.e, Nazi Germany or even Cuba.
The whole idea about America is that what may be considered at one time as foreign becomes a part of mainstream culture. Oftentimes.
Rock and Roll was once considered "jungle music" and outside the American mainstream, but who can say that now?
There are millions of people here from any number of original points of origin, to think that at any one time that they all are going to be proficient in the use of the English language is unrealistic. It is more important that everyone understands over expecting everybody to speak English. Here in Florida, there is a great deal of spanish, French creole speaking that I overhear in conversations, but most of these people are bilingual, more often than not with a pipeline allowing them to communicate with me if need be.
So, the ESL is to help those that are in transition to learn English rather than perpetuate the need of those who will not speak it."What changes have you upset?"
Those changes that have created the deepest divide(s) in Americans since the civil war. And that we are dividing into small "tribes" makes it that much easier - while I celebrate diversity it is important that the people of a country be of one basic culture.
Yes, we are far from homogenous. But that does not mean that we should amplify those differences; it means that we need to work to eliminate them to a large extent. It means that immigrants, legal or otherwise, have a decision to make; whether they will be Americans or something else. And, all too often, they are making the wrong one.And your Republican buddies are exacerbating and amplifying the divide with politicians like Tuberville as just a small example.
There is no such thing as "one basic culture" in a nation of this size. No more is that true in Russia, from St. Petersburg to the Russian Pacific east coast, where do you see homogeneity? We are Americans in common only by agreeing to follow the laws and the defend the national boundaries.
We learn to accept the idea that citizens can be different and still be Americans. The things that you define as "true American culture" do not resonate with me in the same way.The actions of Democrats/liberals during the election and "reign" of Trump have no comparable action from the Republicans. It was beyond belief and went far, far beyond a handful of idiots like Tuberville.
If we cannot find common ground in our culture(s) then we must find it in very high levels of tolerance. Again, something that our "tribes" do not accept, as each one demands that everyone else be like them.
In reading your comment “People can live as they like as long as they subordinate themselves to American law and commit to defending the nation that they reside in as a new home. People will learn English out of necessity and if they don't, is there any skin from off of your nose?” it gave me food for thought for what defines being British.
I don’t know what it is to be British, it’s a complex subject that I haven’t put much thought to. So, I thought I’d look to see what I could find on the Internet, and interestingly it’s the British Government, as reported by the London School of Economics and Political Science (a research university) and Wikipedia, that have tried to define what it is to be British?
The view of the UK Government is that in its simplest form, being British is a legal status of citizenship.
The UK’s Government 2011 version of being British is "democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and the rights of all men and women to live free from persecution of any kind."
The UK’s Government 2014 version of British values (which is still the current version) is “democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs e.g. it’s about integration, not segregation”.
Research by the London School of Economics and Political Science shows that ironically, ethnic minorities within Britain are much more likely to claim they are British than the white majority UK population e.g. the majority of white British citizens consider themselves as being either, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish or English rather than British!
When British people were asked to name what they value about being British there is a diversity of opinions, but many cite identifying symbols such as being proud of the royal family; food, such as beans on toast, fish and chips; and shared institutions, such as political institutions and the NHS, and cultural references.
As regards languages, English is the primary language in most parts of the UK, except Wales (which is a bilingual country) where Welsh is the primary language and English is the secondary language; although the UK Government does support and promote minority languages within the UK e.g. Cornwall gets £200,000 ($220,000) a year from the UK Government to help it preserve the Cornish language, and the Scottish Government spends about £5 million ($5.5 million) a year for the Scottish (Gaelic) language to be taught in Scottish schools.Arthur, there was a time that the sun would never set on the British empire. My wife has lived in the British Virgin Islands and was always pleased as to how the British standards were always on the high road and were consistent.
I have heard distinctly English accents from people over much of Caribbean. Is there a template for the the "traditional Englishman"? Your cultural norms, tea and crumpets, etc. have been willingly adopted in disparate places beyond the British Isles. Your approach has been inclusive rather than otherwise. Otherwise you would not have had all those commonwealth nations represented there for the Late Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee.
In America, people want others to conform based upon compulsion and that does not work. Look at language, nobody is virtually "having a cow" over the fact that parts of the British Isles speak a language other than English."Look at language, nobody is virtually "having a cow" over the fact that parts of the British Isles speak a language other than English."
Perhaps that has something to do with already speaking a different language when the UK was formed? Like Quebec, Canada, where French is the official language?The only constant is change, Wilderness.
People speak differing languages is a given anywhere. I remember the white man forcing the Indiginous people here to abandon their customs and penalize them for not speaking English. Seems like they were here first?Pretty sure you understand what I was talking about, and it wasn't forcing Indians to conform.
Some "American people" may want conformity by compulsion, but not most Americans. (as long as we're talking perceptions) This American and my ilk, (believed to be the majority of Americans), want 'conformity' based upon desire, not compulsion.
Check youtube for some naturalization ceremonies for illustration of my point.
GA“Is there a template for the "traditional Englishman"? Your cultural norms, tea and crumpets, etc.” Well, yes, that’s a good description of a ‘traditional’ Englishman e.g. ‘tea and crumpets’ (the fact that I drink coffee instead of tea is immaterial); but it’s not what a Scotsman, Irishman or Welshman is, they all have their own culture and traditions e.g. in Scotland it’s the kilt, haggis and Hogmanay etc.
Even in England there is the north south divide; different food, different culture and different attitudes etc. e.g. people up north eat black pudding, something southerners (who are more squeamish) would never touch (black pudding having a high blood content, giving its black colour when fried). And people up north are more friendly to strangers, and during hard times (poverty) more likely to share their last meal with a stranger etc. Part of the north/side divide seems to stem from the fact that the Vikings invaded and settled in northern England in the 8th century, bring with them their own culture, language and attitudes e.g. at that time, until the Norman Conquest of 1066, northern England was a separate country known as Danelaw, while southern England (ruled by the Saxons) was called Wessex: https://youtu.be/T-IY_G_txdM
You highlight the positive side of the British Empire, and back in 2014 two thirds of the British population would agree with you; but in recent years attitudes have changed, and in 2020 only 34% of the British public felt that the old British Empire was something to be proud of.
This link gives some interesting reading on the topic: - https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac … -changing/
Thanks for your feedback; can’t argue with that.
The only real division in the UK in recent, which has split the nation almost exactly 50/50, is Brexit – scars which will take generations to heal.
During the pandemic the whole nation, opposition parties and the public, were united in supporting the Government in its fight against covid e.g. around 80% of the General Public supported the way the Conservative Government handled the pandemic.
Interestingly, at the moment in the UK the issue isn’t ‘tribalism’ it’s the fact that the Conservative Party is tearing itself apart with fierce ‘in-fighting’; which as a socialist makes it rather entertaining, and fun, seeing the Government conflicting what could be potential mortal wounds on itself; with the next General Election just a couple of years away, the current lack of unity within the Government is risking the Government to a potential humiliating defeat in the next General Election e.g. in the most recent opinion polls the gap between Conservative (Right-wing Capitalists) and Labour (left-wing Socialists) has widened to 33%, putting Labour on 54% and the Conservatives on just 21%; a gap that hasn’t been seen since Labour’s landslide victory in 1997.
So as a socialist, the next General Election could be interesting!
It is only because of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, and the Republicans unanimous support of it that I have put my implements of war back upon the shelf.
They have taken themselves away from subscribing to becoming a fascistic cult to instead being a political party with different ideas.
Since they have agreed at its highest levels to work within the Constitution and its prescribed rules of governance, I am willing to listen. We can now consider ourselves as disagreeing neighbors, rather than combatants. As they have agreed not to attack the referee.
It now comes down to differing politics amongst our citizenry.
However, just looking at how far to the Right most of the conservatives on this forum place themselves, we are going to have quite a level of disagreement and that is to be expected. That cannot be ameliorated or modified.
I am in the camp just to Right of the "squad" as I am the most comfortable with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders levels, with Kamela Harris and Joe Biden being to my Right as "corporate democrats".
Any party that is comfortable to Proud Boys, 3 percenters, Qanon and other white supremacist groups has too broad a tent for me to find a home within. I cannot look in the mirror and see how I could coexist with such a crew.
There remains a chasm of disagreement between myself and anything on the Right. However, let the people's will be done.Faye is completely correct. But it's not just the United States that's suffering from this social sickness. In my native Britain and, to a lesser extent, in my adopted country, Spain, the same bear-baiting goes on.
Much of it, I think, is down to modern means of communication. Everyone has access to all sorts of information and a platform for their opinions. Unfortunately, we suffer from confirmation bias and constantly find support for our own prejudices while ignoring evidence against our cherished beliefs.If you cannot readily admit fault of your tribe, then you are tribal. For example, when Biden called for the the deceased Congresswoman recently, I readily admitted that was bad. I am definitely in the part of the party that does not want him to run for reelection. I disagreed with him attempting to remove the stay in Mexico policy. On other issues such as inflation, where the entire world is experiencing that phenomena, I will defend his administration against the partisan blame games.
But as recently as 2016, I was voting Kasich if the GOP had given him their bid. Neither Sanders or Clinton appealed to me. Experienced Governor, fiscally sound policies, socially progressive.
And I am vehemently against the tenets of Trumpism that attempts to get Americans to live in an alternate reality where easily provable truths are attacked, both in social media and violently. America First is a failed premise with the United States tied into global markets. China's retaliation that decimated our agricultural markets, and turned America's farmers into dependents of governor bailouts, showed that clearly."If you cannot readily admit fault of your tribe, then you are tribal."
Yes, this is the heart of the argument. The root of the problem. People are to often twisting themselves into pretzels to justify their party line regardless of it's merit.Hmmm . . . I voted for Kasich as a write-in in 2016.
GA
Related Discussions
- 36
Odd Facts About European Leaders
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?The first is they are all leaders of...
- 23
Looking for Racism
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
This article is SPOT ON!"Liberals are expanding the definition of racism to silence their political opponents and justify their expansive claims on power. Despite America’s penchant for comeback stories and apology tours for celebrities and politicians — especially those involving sexual and...
- 21
Is USAID's 'Soft Power' Benefit Worth The Money Spent?
by ga anderson 2 months ago
A previous comment about 'the value of an under-informed opinion' is appropriate here."Soft Power" is the buzzword for the foreign relations benefits of USAID. A Michael Smercornish segment spoke to that question. He made a lot of sense with specific examples. The 'Sesame Street video for...
- 1270
Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
by Scott Belford 9 days ago
Three white men were recently convicted of chasing down and murdering a black man who had the audacity to appear in their neighborhood. A year ago or more they might have gotten away with it.Today there is a report of another white father and son team shooting at a black FedEx driver at least...
- 74
Harrison-Walz Ticket
by Kathryn L Hill 9 months ago
Kamala's VP pick is radical, woke, progressive and Pro Islamic. He has an extreme record regarding abortion issues including after-birth deaths, (late-term abortion,) and other worrisome issues regarding children. The state of Minnesota has high taxation and problematic energy issues.Was this a...
- 66
What Do You Expect a Brexit Will Bring ?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The government’s bill implementing the withdrawal deal has passed through both Houses of Parliament, meaning the UK will finally be leaving the EU on January 31st, 2020. For the duration of the debate, both sides have made bold predictions about the success of failure of the split. What...