Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

So because the French call us "les americains" rather than "Americans", it indicates a lack of identity? Are they also suffering a lack of identity for referring to themselves as "les francaises" where we call them the French? Or is it maybe, you magnificent ******, indicative of the fact that we speak two different languages, and every language in the world contains different terms for other countries' citizens?

So do we, nitwit. There's a reason no one in any other countries among both American continents refers to themselves as Americans. Hint: It's because it's a unique identifier for us. When Ecuador renames itself "United Ecuador of America" and starts calling themselves Americans, then come back to me. The fact that our name semantically can refer to anyone from those two continents is irrelevant, because in reality it doesn't.

All of this is ignoring the fact that there's no reason to care about this in the first place.

The fact that "American" is the universally accepted term for us shoots a massive hole right through your argument's chest. Everyone knows what you mean when you say "American". It therefore identifies us. It's honestly frightening that you can't understand/accept that.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 11:57am by Eske

Ugh. I'm humiliated by proxy.

You really should have read the entire article instead of just the first half of the first page. That part is an explanation of historical patterns for segregation within communities. The rest goes into the degree to which this pattern of segregation is being self-perpetuated by blacks who have come to see segregation as a form of empowerment (and a host of other reasons as well). You should really read the whole thing and not just the introduction.

I, for one, will not miss the children of the corn.

Did you even comprehend my post? The term for "American" is as unique to the U.S as the term "Asian" is for Japan. It's not that it "can" refer to anyone,it's that it "does" refer to anyone. The only reason why the U.S is the only one who calls themselves "Americans" is because everyone else actually has a name to call themselves. Ecuador doesn't have to change their name to "United Ecuador of America" to start calling themselves "Americans", they can just start calling themselves "American" and it will be no different than India deciding to call themselves Asian.

The fact that the other 50 some odd countries don't call themselves "American" isn't because the U.S. took it or they don't have "America" in their name, it's because those countries want to be like the other countries in the world, to have a name that uniquely identifies them.

Your denial of acceptance of this whole ordeal is a personal problem, not mine. So, just because you don't see the relevance in this, it's not my fault.



Uh, no. My point is that as a nation, we don't have an identity because we continuously change our traditions in an attempt to please everyone. If you have no problem with your nation wasting resources such as time and money to accomplish an impossible never ending task that isn't necessary for equality or freedom, then so be it. Logically speaking, that makes no sense.





Read my first response above.

You two are completely missing the whole point. It's really not that difficult. Just pick a country in the world and compare. I thought the Asian analogy would ding a light bulb. It's not that the term "America" doesn't refer to the U.S., it's the fact that the term itself is a general term for both continents and given the simple fact that every other country has a more specific term for themselves, the U.S. is able to just call themselves "Americans".

Think about the terms "Coke", "Xerox", "Nintendo","Kleenex", etc. All of these terms specifically refer to a product but are often used to describe other products. It's the opposite notion of what I'm trying to explain to you. In this example, you have one word that is unique to one thing being used to describe multiple things. "America" is a term that refers to multiple things that is used to only describe one thing. Just because something is done in practice doesn't make it legit.



I did read the whole thing, hence how I saw the last section. Who reads last to start? In any case, unless the article is self-contradicting, it doesn't contradict the point that the article claims that the majority of black people wanted to live in an integrated neighborhoods but white people don't buy real estate in heavily black populated neighborhoods. Furthermore that they will actually move if the population got to mixed.

The reason why I didn't respond to the first half is because my argument wasn't ever that black people don't self-segregate. I've argued that EVERYONE self-segregates, which was supported by your article. White people self-segregates when there is a high black population. Thanks for playing though, nice try.

Edit: I didn't realize it was 4 pages... I'll read the rest now.. In any case, my points are still valid unless the article is self-contradicting.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 11:50pm by Almalieque

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:01am by Almalieque

I don't really see where that's happening, even in your "examples." But then... you didn't give many examples to go off of, either.

Also? Jem is truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

Alma? Do you understand that the article presents quotes from those who support the idea of self-segregation, and then argues against them? Just reading the "pro" position only tells half the story. For example, this section:




is followed up a couple paragraphs later with this:



And...



Hey, lookit that! He's basically saying the same thing I said about 8 pages ago. He just used the term "polity" instead of "label". Hmmm...

And this quote?



It was prefaced with this caveat:



Again, the article is presenting one point of view, and the presenting a counter argument to that view. That specific section is followed by a reasonable examination of the conflicting views among black thinkers about the role of segregation vs integration within the context of enabling blacks to be successful within the larger framework of the US. It concludes that while the self-segregation approach might have worked if it had continued unabated from the start prior to the passage of things like the Civil Rights Act, it's largely counterproductive for black success today. Yet, the trend is going in that direction anyway, to the detriment of black Americans.



Do you see how the later bits refute the earlier ones? That's a deliberate style within the article. Don't take that to mean that it's about how wonderful self-segregation is.




Yup. Hence the quote above about allowing integration to occur naturally instead of forcing things. Had black workers and black business owners simply worked and owned naturally, over time they would have gained socio-economic position and integrated naturally. But because we went through this process of top-down mandated segregation, then integration, it's left the black community with a sense that their success is no longer determined by themselves, but external forces over which they have limited control. This leads to greater reliance on political solutions rather than the slower but more natural (and more lasting!) social ones.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 4:02pm by gbaji

*sigh*

I didn't misunderstand your argument, Alma. It's just a very, very, very stupid argument.

Oh, I think it's fine if you teach them both as mythology, yeah?