4 ms·

Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity — that’s one of the things the US is historically famous for. Irish, Italians, and the “not wh

Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity — that’s one of the things the US is historically famous for. Irish, Italians, and the “not white enough” Europeans; Chinese, Japanese, and Asian groups; recent African migrants, etc. Every one of these groups integrated and thrived over time, without stalling out the process, because they joined a shared American culture focused on merit and cultural fusion via open debate. Starting with identitarian politics in the 60s that process has stalled, to the point it’s become non-functional in modern times, with antipodal ideas like “cultural appropriation”. This coincides with the infiltration of academia by Soviets, and the rise of many social movements using Soviet psyop mantras. “It was always this way!” is lazy rhetoric, and afactual: there’s been a change in American cultural values over the past 20, 50, and 100 years — and we should talk about that, because they’re changes that impact our well-being.

MockObject 8y ago
The argument that there was never an American identity is part of the conceptual attack against the American identity. However, the denial of the existence of the identity contradicts any complaints about people's non-admission into it. So which is it: 1. The American identity never even existed, so all complaints of exclusion are invalid. 2. The identity existed, but some were excluded and that was bad, so the identity exists and is good, and assimilation is good.
photojosh 8y ago
> Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity That list of originating cultures stands out to me for what it excludes: slaves and descendants thereof, native Americans and hispanics. Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. (Too bad for those who get left behind or the weak, if they're not part of our group they can just get trampled in the process.) > Starting with identitarian politics in the 60s that process has stalled Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  > Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. My point is that Hispanics or blacks in the 1960s-1980s weren’t any worse off than say, the Chinese during railroad construction or the Japanese during internment in material terms — whatever the historic record. So it’s worth examining why some disadvantaged social groups integrated while others did not — or perhaps a better phrasing is “better integrated”. Unless you’re racist, surely you must agree that the answer is cultural. > Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously. You’re being facetious. Those movements had roots in genuine domestic issues, however, radical segments of each movement were supported by Soviets or their sympathizers — offering things like funding and advice on effective propaganda in order to sow civil dissent. These radical arms of the movements eventuall took over, and transformed genuine civil rights movements into regressive and harmful ones. It’s similar to their actions in 2016, when they funded advertisements for radical positions on the issue of race, gender, immigration, etc. That kind of psyop to destabilize a country by funding radicals within is older than the US, and has been practiced by the CIA as well. None of that detracts from the fact that radical feminism, identitarian politics, and intersectionalism all emerged from Marxist philosophy partially sponsored by Soviets. Researching the Soviet idea of “useful idiots” is interesting.

MockObject 8y ago

The argument that there was never an American identity is part of the conceptual attack against the American identity. However, the denial of the existence of the identity contradicts any complaints about people's non-admission into it. So which is it: 1. The American identity never even existed, so all complaints of exclusion are invalid. 2. The identity existed, but some were excluded and that was bad, so the identity exists and is good, and assimilation is good.

photojosh 8y ago

> Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity That list of originating cultures stands out to me for what it excludes: slaves and descendants thereof, native Americans and hispanics. Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. (Too bad for those who get left behind or the weak, if they're not part of our group they can just get trampled in the process.) > Starting with identitarian politics in the 60s that process has stalled Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously.

FakeComments 8y ago
> Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. My point is that Hispanics or blacks in the 1960s-1980s weren’t any worse off than say, the Chinese during railroad construction or the Japanese during internment in material terms — whatever the historic record. So it’s worth examining why some disadvantaged social groups integrated while others did not — or perhaps a better phrasing is “better integrated”. Unless you’re racist, surely you must agree that the answer is cultural. > Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously. You’re being facetious. Those movements had roots in genuine domestic issues, however, radical segments of each movement were supported by Soviets or their sympathizers — offering things like funding and advice on effective propaganda in order to sow civil dissent. These radical arms of the movements eventuall took over, and transformed genuine civil rights movements into regressive and harmful ones. It’s similar to their actions in 2016, when they funded advertisements for radical positions on the issue of race, gender, immigration, etc. That kind of psyop to destabilize a country by funding radicals within is older than the US, and has been practiced by the CIA as well. None of that detracts from the fact that radical feminism, identitarian politics, and intersectionalism all emerged from Marxist philosophy partially sponsored by Soviets. Researching the Soviet idea of “useful idiots” is interesting.