| From: | Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Doom Waxes Political II . . . now part of a College Credit Course |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Apr 1994 19:08:30 -0500 |
> The idealistic "melting-pot" concept has always been myth. Look at
the
>genocide of the native american for your evidence of this hypocrisy. For that
>matter, our beloved pilgrims came here because they were better than everyone
I would challenge that assumption, the "melting-pot" philosophical
pyridine was that supporting the concept of assimilation into the broader
hodge-podge American culture, wherein the foreigner surrenders a measure of
his ethnic identity in exchange for the incorporation of elements of his
heritage into the American culture -- Idealistic, I realize, but this is
how the thought worked.
The programs against the Indians were "dynamic assimilation" or
extermination if resisted strongly enough; however, before we decry
American policy as uniquely cruel, consider the activities of the British,
or other Europeans in the colonial game who took up "the White man's burden."
Where I would look for the failure of the melting-pot hypothesis is in
the prejudice against immigrants -- I sincerely doubt that non-Caucasians were
included in the ruminations on the ethnic mix of America. The "Know Nothing"
Party was centered primarily around opposition to the "vile encroachment of
German and Irish immigrants". Similar attitudes surface with the deluge of
Southern and Eastern European immigrants in later generations. However, the
"melting-pot" /did/ work after a fashion. Once settled, typically, the
previously despised groups joined with their former critics in railing against
the most recent batch of newcomers to America.
However, in partial defense of the Puritan Pilgrims, they were
motivated at least partially be religious intolerance in England (the Kings of
the Stuart Dynasty, in particular, were quite unfond of them). Alternatively,
I think it indicative of considerable hypocrisy when, once established, they
turned around and exhibited the same manner of religious rigidity as that under
which they previously had suffered.
> I mean, at least in South Africa the ruling minority openly persecuted
>everyone else. They needed laws, armed troops, and police brutality to prevent
>the current mix.
America was quite capable of overt action. What about poll taxes?
Literacy tests for suffrage? Jim Crow laws? Although I grant that official
contemporary government policy is against discrimination and ethnic
partisanship. The stress in America may be just a less graphic example of
what the situation in Israel is demonstrating: Reform of attitudes from above
is not necessarily sufficient.
"If you drive prejudice out by the door, it shall come in by the window."
-- Frederick II, the Great, of Prussia
> With this as background, advance to the 1950's, when America was the
>best and the brightest and everyone in the neighborhood was a WASP. or else.
Forget not the previous influence of the Masonic Lodge, which has waned
somewhat recently.
> Today's "Black Pride" movement is even more militant than Malcolm X
or
>the Black Pnathers were. This is just one example, but the various minority
>groups seem to have No Interest in jumping into a melting pot! Everybody wants
>to remain separate, and they've been teaching their children for so long it's
The pendulum has swung into the opposite direction to achieve the
absolute opposite polarity, creating a similarly reactionary position. I
cannot help but suspect Political Correctness to somehow be involved in this
new separatist attitude.
> If current trends continue:
[ list of various social factors deleted for space. ]
I believe the true clincher for any surge of political change in this
country shall be the financial situation. Although I grant the other forces
you cite shall accordingly fanned by the flames if a monetary crisis provides
the initial impetus in "getting the ball rolling". Consider the French
Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the Nazi
Revolution. In all cases, a financial crisis exacerbated the discontent
people felt with the present government. Agitators took advantage of this,
compounding it with other unrest, and fanned the flames of armed revolt.
The truly ironic element to the economic issues facing the government
is that most of the funds doled out by the government are not to the military,
despite how much the press harangues about it; rather, the largest portion is
committed to social spending in its myriad manifestations (although note that
I am not judging it to be either good or bad). The unfortunate reality
remains that social spending is ruinously unpopular to decrease.
Spending, I feel, absolutely must be cut. The present administration
is proposing greater and broader taxes. The suggestion that these shall
succeed requires that one proceed from the assumption that the taxpayers shall
not attempt to evade or avoid the new, elevated rates. In my experience, human
nature, typically, resists change . . . and it is amazing the lengths to which
people will go to avoid paying.
Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that if this nation's financial
difficulties are not rectified (previous to it becoming /really/ desperate) the
situation shall deteriorate to the point that only a new government shall be
able to rise from the ashes of the old. The point should be made, however, I
do not particularly like this idea (revolution fills me with revulsion), nor
do I see this phenomena as particularly imminent, although certain contemporary
factors (especially this separatism) do nothing to ameliorate the situation.
> Therefore (Still with me? Good!) when the bottom drops out, hopefully
>not soon, we'll be safe in our ivory towers connected by the MatrixNet. Profit
Remember who the revolutionaries typically have targeted in their "cleaning
house": Members of all elites: Social, Military, Economic, and Intellectual
(and sometimes Spiritual). Do not be too sure the revolutionaries, whoever
they shall be, shall not be banging on the door of your Ivory Tower.
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Von Herrn Robert Watkins
>To be quite honest, a lot of the problems with violence in America has
>historical roots. The vast disparity in living conditions, the easy
>availability of firearms, ingrained racism, and a general feeling that
>violence solves problems all have historical roots in American (Statesfolk
>at least) history.
Well, to your last point: In some ways, what would one expect from a
nation with America's history?
A synthetically constructed nation, born of armed rebellion against
its mother country, at a time of the Enlightenment where the concept of the
Individual was most lauded and emphasized.
American culture idolizes the individual. Coupled with that the
American concept of a Manifest Destiny which constantly pushed the country
towards the Pacific Ocean. The individualistic pioneer spirit is the source
of much myth and folklore in America, laden with the symbol of the man who
strikes out on his own and braves the wilds and dangers and shall, by force of
will, bend them to his desire.
Also in that "drang nach Westen" settlement often outstripped
civilization, and the rule of law experienced a particularly belated arrival
to many of the outlying areas. From this developed the impression that were
a man to protect himself, his family, and his property he had to be prepared
to take matters into his own hands, lest he be preyed upon by brigands and
thieves.
Heroes to Americans are typically unorthodox, strong individuals who
do not shirk from violence and willingly defy accepted conventions and
regulations in pursuit of their /own/ just goals.
Notice, I only responded to your comments about the violence of
America, not the other issues you raised.
I am unsure about your suggestion of "ingrained" racism. I submit
that racism developed as much as anything from a seeking to reconcile the
reality of the political status and servitude of Africans with the theoretical
adulation of the rights of man. Taking their status as a given, it was
speculated that the circumstances developed from the fact that they were
somehow an "inferior" race and hence were better suited to manual labor.
[ Hardly an unusual conclusion, the French, a society of perhaps the most
revolutionary minded people (How many republics have they gone through?)
arrived at similar conclusions, despite all their enlightened banter. ]
This proved a satisfactory (even if totally erroneous) answer, and thus
prevented the nagging problem of conscious cognitive dissonance. The
fact that their skin color differed from Europeans' caused the sense of
inferiority to be attributed to all members of dark-skinned races.
>It's worth noting that other countries with similar historical problems
>lack the US's current social problems. It seems to have been the particular
>mixture that has caused the current situation.
Well, as I mentioned in the earlier posting, many nations who
encountered vicissitude with ethnic-motivated tension, broke up or literally
tore themselves to pieces.
>ObShadowRun: The whole world now has this problem, and it'll spread out of
>the States to every other country by 2050. Hence such social failures as
>the Barrens.
What? Large slums (also known as substandard housing locating in the
inner cities where the economically disadvantaged reside)? Those already
exist, merely not to the degree or magnitude as witnessed in ShadowRun.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia
